IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Counterfeiting
Subscribe to Counterfeiting's Posts

David-Versus-Goliath Trademark Victory Isn’t Necessarily “Exceptional”

by | Jul 25, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an award of attorneys’ fees for reanalysis, explaining that the district court’s finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act was based on policy considerations rather than the totality of the circumstances. Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1417; -1418 (3rd Cir. July 10, 2024) (Hardiman, Matey, Phipps, JJ.)

Lontex Corporation is a small Pennsylvania business that manufactures and sells compression apparel to professional athletes and the public. Since 2008 it has held a registered trademark for the mark COOL COMPRESSION, which it used in conjunction with its sale of apparel. In 2015, Nike rebranded an athletic clothing line that included a category of “Cool” products designed to reduce body temperature, as well as various fits, including “Compression.” It also began using the words “Cool” and “Compression” together in the names of Nike clothing products sold online and in Nike catalogues. Nike used “Cool Compression” as a product name on tech sheets, which are internal documents used to explain Nike products to employees and third-party retailers.

The following year, upon discovering Nike’s use of the phrase “Cool Compression,” Lontex sent Nike a cease-and-desist letter. Nike’s lawyers directed the company to stop using the phrase “as soon as possible.” Nike took steps to remove the phrase from its website and catalogs but not its tech sheets. Two years later, Nike reached out to its third-party retailers and asked them to stop using “Compression” in product names.

Lontex sued Nike for trademark infringement of its COOL COMPRESSION mark, for contributory infringement based on its supply of “Cool Compression” products to retailers, and for counterfeiting. The district court dismissed the counterfeiting claim, and a jury trial was held on the infringement actions. The jury returned a verdict for Lontex, finding Nike liable for willful and contributory infringement. The jury awarded Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages but declined to award Lontex disgorgement of Nike’s profits.

Post-trial, Nike renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law on fair use, trademark infringement, contributory infringement, willfulness and punitive damages. Lontex moved for disgorgement of profits and trebling of the damages awarded by the jury. The district court granted Lontex’s request for treble damages, increased the compensatory award to $426,000, and separately awarded Lontex almost $5 million in attorneys’ fees after finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Both parties appealed.

As to the willfulness finding, Nike argued that the jury should not have been permitted to infer willfulness solely from its continued use of the mark after it received its cease-and-desist letter. The Third Circuit disagreed, pointing out that not only did Nike adopt the “Cool Compression” phrase without doing a trademark search, it also continued to use the phrase after receiving Lontex’s cease-and-desist letter and being advised by its own legal team to stop using it as soon as possible. The Court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer willful infringement. For similar reasons, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

It’s an Old Tune: Third-Party-Use Evidence From Long Ago Can Support Genericness

by | Jul 18, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in wholesale exclusion of evidence on the issue of genericness. The evidence was offered to show prior use of a trade dress from more than five years prior to an alleged infringer’s first use of a mark. Gibson Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 22-40587 (5th Cir. July 8, 2024) (Stewart, Clement, Ho, JJ.)

Gibson filed trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims against Armadillo Distribution Enterprises in 2019, alleging that Armadillo infringed four of Gibson’s trademarked guitar body shapes, one guitar headstock shape and two word marks. Just before trial, the district court made several evidentiary rulings on the parties’ motions in limine, including one in which Gibson sought to exclude all arguments and evidence related to advertisements or sales of third-party guitars before 1992, arguing they had limited probative value and were unduly prejudicial. Gibson argued that any third-party-use evidence should be restricted to a five-year period from 1992 to 1997. In its first exclusion order, the district court found that evidence of third-party use was relevant to determining whether a mark was generic or unprotectable but concluded that the probative value of the evidence from before the 1990s was low and found that the five-year cutoff date was reasonable. Armadillo objected to that ruling, leading to oral argument and a second exclusion order upholding the first order. The district court relied on Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 403 and the 2018 Federal Circuit ruling in Converse v. International Trade Commission to support this wholesale exclusion of evidence prior to 1992.

The parties proceeded to trial in mid-2022. A jury found that Armadillo infringed all of the trademarks other than one word mark and found that Armadillo marketed counterfeits. Armadillo appealed based on the district court’s exclusion of decades of third-party-use evidence. Armadillo asserted that this evidence was central to Armadillo’s counterclaim seeking cancellation of the marks and its main defense of genericness.

The Fifth Circuit first considered the district court’s reliance on Converse and determined that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the third-party evidence predating 1992. Armadillo argued that reliance on Converse was error because that case concerned secondary meaning and not genericness. Gibson countered that genericness and secondary meaning are closely related issues and that the five-year period predating infringement is the most logical measuring line. Alternatively, Gibson argued that 15 U.S.C. § 1064 would bar evidence predating 1992 because it provides that a petition to cancel a mark’s registration must be filed within five years from the date of registration of the mark.

The Fifth Circuit found that Converse did not rule that third-party-use evidence from more than five years prior to the alleged infringer’s first use was irrelevant to the issue of genericness and did not compel a strict five-year limitation of third-party-use evidence. The Court further reasoned that under Converse, evidence of prior use is relevant if such use was likely to have [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO Seeks Comments on Strategies to Address Counterfeiting and Piracy

by | Jun 8, 2023 |

On May 25, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) requested comments on strategies to address counterfeiting and piracy. The PTO requested information on current anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy strategies that have proven effective, as well as ideas for future strategies.

The PTO requested comments on the 14 points listed below. Respondents may address any, all or none of these points. The PTO will receive any input relevant to future strategies in the fight to prevent counterfeited and pirated goods from entering the stream of commerce and reaching the hands of consumers.

1. Current anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy strategies, and any trends in how often such practices guide plans for addressing these issues in the future.

2. The types of harms observed from sales of counterfeited and pirated goods.

3. How to educate consumers about the harms and dangers that may result from the use and sale of counterfeited or pirated products.

4. Current anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy strategies that have proven successful, and those that have not. Information relating to targets of anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy efforts, such as ecommerce platforms, physical markets and social media.

5. Anticipated challenges in the fight to prevent counterfeited and pirated goods from entering the stream of commerce and reaching the hands of consumers, and how to address those challenges.

6. Observed patterns and trends in counterfeiting and piracy during the COVID-19 pandemic. An indication of whether the commenter anticipates that such patterns and trends will continue post-pandemic.

7. Patterns and trends observed in counterfeiting and piracy due to shifts in the economy. An indication of whether the commenter anticipates that such patterns and trends will continue and if so, an explanation regarding the expected impact on current and future strategic plans to combat counterfeiting and piracy.

8. The commenter’s thoughts on whether any strategic plans to combat counterfeiting and piracy might include collaboration with private or public parties. If a strategic plan is not collaborative, why not? If collaborative, a discussion of the anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy strategies employed in the collaboration.

9. New collaborative efforts contemplated to combat counterfeiting and piracy and factors that will affect implementation decisions. Discussion of how future collaborations might be composed.

10. Effective technologies to prevent counterfeited and pirated goods from entering the stream of commerce and reaching the hands of consumers, such as counterfeit product identification devices or advanced algorithms to secure supply chains and provide the identity of counterfeit goods online. A discussion of how anticipated strategies will improve an overall anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy strategy.

11. How online enforcement activities intersect with trademark and copyright laws or procedures. Do online enforcement strategies include employing existing trademark laws to combat online counterfeiting? Do online enforcement strategies use existing copyright laws to combat online piracy? If so, describe these activities and suggestions for maximizing these practices.

12. Description of any fraudulent documentation or materials observed in the furtherance of online counterfeiting and piracy activity. For example, comment on whether, after reporting an infringement to a platform, a counter-notification was attached [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Déjà vu Decision on Likelihood of Confusion

by | May 19, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a trademark suit that was essentially identical to a previous lawsuit that was dismissed based on a finding of lack of confusion. Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Pharr San Juan Alamo Independent School District, Case No. 21-40336 (5th Cir. May 10, 2022) (Willett, Engelhardt, Wilson, JJ.)

Springboards sells products to school districts in connection with its “Read a Million Words Campaign.” The campaign builds excitement around reading by incentivizing school children to read books through promises of induction into the Millionaire’s Reading Club and access to rewards, such as t-shirts, backpacks and fake money. Springboards’ goods may typically bear any combination of trademarks that it registered with the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), including “Read a Million Words,” “Million Dollar Reader,” “Millionaire Reader” and “Millionaire’s Reading Club.”

Pharr San Juan Alamo (PSJA) is a public school district in Hidalgo County, Texas. Springboards sued PSJA in 2016 in federal court, alleging trademark infringement based on the school district’s use of “millionaire”-themed reading incentive programs allegedly “using products and services bearing marks and branding identical to or confusingly similar to Springboards’ marks.” While the case was pending, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Houston Independent School District, where it found that another public school district’s summer reading program did not infringe Springboards’ trademarks. Observing the parallels between the Houston case and the PSJA case, the district court granted PSJA’s motion for summary judgment that it did not infringe any of Springboards’ trademarks. Springboards appealed.

Calling it “déjà vu all over again,” the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that PSJA’s use of Springboards’ marks was not likely to cause confusion. The Court explained that distinguishing between Springboards’ catalog of “millionaire”-themed goods and unaffiliated “millionaire”-themed goods that other educational entities have elected to deploy is not difficult, and unique imprints on “millionaire”-themed reading challenges are widespread in the educational field. The Court noted that as in Houston, Springboards did not allege that PSJA itself is in the business of competing with Springboards by selling its own “millionaire”-themed products to the school districts that make up Springboards’ customer base. The Court thus concluded that PSJA’s use of a million-word reaching challenge did not confuse and was not intended to confuse the sophisticated school districts that Springboards targets with its marks.

Springboards tried to distinguish the Houston case by arguing that the Houston school district had one summer reading program whereas PSJA has had several year-long reading programs and that the requirements of PSJA’s reading program are identical—and not merely similar to—Springboards’ model program. Springboards also noted that its founder worked his entire career in Hildago County (where PSJA is located) and visited schools, teachers and administrators in the district—unlike Houston, which was over 300 miles away. The Court found that these facts did not move the needle, in light of its finding that sophisticated school district customers can [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Post-Verdict Appeal of Previously Denied SJ Motion

by | Jan 21, 2021 |

In a closely watched trademark/counterfeiting case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment for contributory infringement, award of permanent injunction and monetary damage award against a commercial landlord found to have been willfully blind to trademark infringement and counterfeiting occurring on its leased property. Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC, Case No. 19-969 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) (Menashi, J.) (Lohier, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). The Court also concluded that it could not consider a post-verdict appeal on a legal issue raised in a denied summary judgment motion (i.e., whether the landlord needed to know of a specific vendor involved in the counterfeiting) when the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal and did not seek an interlocutory appeal or file a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue.

375 Canal LLC is a commercial landlord with properties in Manhattan, including 375 Canal Street. Omega SA is a watch company. Omega sued Canal for contributory trademark infringement, alleging that Canal had continued to lease space at 375 Canal Street to vendors despite knowing that the vendors were selling counterfeit Omega goods. After discovery, Canal moved for summary judgment, contending that Omega did not identify a specific vendor to which Canal continued to lease property despite knowing or having reason to know that the specific vendor was selling counterfeit goods. Omega argued that its primary theory of willful blindness did not require identification of a specific vendor. The district court denied Canal’s motion, agreeing that Omega was not required to identify a specific vendor.

The jury found that Canal had contributorily and willfully infringed Omega’s trademarks, and awarded $1.1 million in statutory damages. The district court amended the final judgment to include a permanent injunction prohibiting Canal from infringing and taking other actions with respect to Omega’s marks, even outside of 375 Canal Street. Canal appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not requiring Omega to identify a specific vendor that Canal knew or should have known was infringing Omega’s trademarks. Canal raised this argument by appealing the pre-trial order denying Canal’s motion for summary judgment and the jury instructions.

The Second Circuit dismissed Canal’s appeal of the summary judgment denial and affirmed the jury instructions on the merits. On Canal’s challenge to the summary judgment denial, the Court began with the premise that a party generally cannot appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits because of its interlocutory character, which is not within appellate jurisdiction. The denial of Canal’s summary judgment motion did not qualify for an exception allowing review, such as situations where Congress has provided for review of certain interlocutory decisions, or where the Supreme Court has construed certain denials of summary judgment, such as those on the basis of qualified immunity, as final decisions permitting review. But even if it had qualified, Canal would have been required to file a notice of appeal within [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Eye Don’t: No Counterfeiting Without Likelihood of Confusion

by | Oct 15, 2020 |

Referring to the act of counterfeiting as “hard core” or “first degree” trademark infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the first time confirmed that the Lanham Act requires a likelihood of confusion in order for the trademark holder to prevail on a counterfeiting claim. Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-55586 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2020) (Lee, J.) In doing so, the Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Farmacy Beauty in a counterfeiting action brought by skin care brand Arcona.

Arcona’s counterfeiting claims (which remained in the district court action after Arcona requested dismissal of its trademark infringement and unfair competition claims) stemmed from Farmacy Beauty’s use of the term EYE DEW on its skincare products, which Arcona asserted to be counterfeit versions of its eye cream sold in the United States under the registered EYE DEW trademark. The district court, however, found that dissimilar packaging and branding made it “implausible” that consumers would be tricked into believing that Farmacy’s EYE DEW product was actually one of Arcona’s skin care products, and granted partial summary judgment for Farmacy on the counterfeiting claim. Arcona appealed.

Arcona argued that it was not required to show a likelihood of consumer confusion with respect to the parties’ EYE DEW eye creams in order to pursue its trademark counterfeiting claim. The Ninth Circuit starkly disagreed, finding that the plain language of the Lanham Act, 15 USC § 1114, expressly states that likelihood of confusion is a requirement for a counterfeiting claim.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Arcona’s alternative argument, that there should be a presumption of likelihood of confusion based on the parties’ use of the identical mark EYE DEW. The Court explained that in a claim of counterfeiting—even with identical trademarks—there is no presumption of consumer confusion if the products themselves are not identical. Here, evidence demonstrated that the parties sold their respective EYE DEW products in very different packages, with Arcona’s eye cream being in a “tall, cylindrical, silver bottle encased in a slim, cardboard outer box,” and Farmacy’s eye cream sold in a “short, wide, white jar, along with a squarish outer box.” In reviewing the parties’ respective products as a whole, including prominent displays of the respective house marks FARMACY and ARCONA, as well as differences in packaging, size, color, shape and “all other attributes,” the Court determined that the parties’ products were not identical and that there was no presumption of consumer confusion.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that summary judgment of no counterfeiting was proper because there was no genuine dispute of material fact about the likelihood of consumer confusion factor. The Court acknowledged that the parties’ eye cream products do compete in the same space and in the same geographic markets, but explained that a claim of counterfeiting nevertheless requires that the parties’ marks be “considered in their entirety and as they appear in the marketplace.” Noting that the available evidence demonstrated significant differences between [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Diamonds to Dust? Too Many Factual Disputes Precludes Summary Judgment

by | Aug 26, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a district court’s summary judgment grant in favor of a fine jewelry producer for trademark infringement, counterfeiting and unfair competition because factual disputes exist around whether the accused infringer’s use of the word “Tiffany” was merely descriptive of a particular ring setting, thereby supporting a fair use defense to infringement. Tiffany and Company v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case Nos. 17-2798-cv, -19-338, -19-404 (2nd Cir. Aug. 17, 2020) (Livingston, J.).

In 2012, a Costco customer alerted Tiffany that she believed Costco was selling diamond engagement rings advertised as Tiffany rings. When Tiffany approached Costco about the issue in December 2012, Costco asserted that its point-of-sale displays bearing the Tiffany name referred to the diamond setting styles of its rings, and that other similar point-of-sale displays also identified common ring settings such as “bezel” or “cathedral” settings. Costco also claims that within one week after Tiffany’s December 2012 outreach, it voluntarily removed all uses of “Tiffany” from its jewelry displays and has not since used the word “Tiffany” to identify any rings or setting styles.

Nevertheless, in 2013, Tiffany filed suit against Costco for trademark infringement and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition in violation of New York state law, based on Costco’s sales of otherwise unbranded diamond engagement rings identified by point-of-sale signs containing the word “Tiffany.” In response, Costco raised the affirmative defense of fair use, arguing that its use of “Tiffany” on certain signage for rings was not as a source-identifying trademark, but merely to describe a particular six-prong diamond setting style. Costco also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel certain federal trademark registrations for the TIFFANY mark as “generic” for a specific jewelry setting, and not entitled to registered trademark protection.

The district court granted Tiffany’s motion for summary judgment finding Costco liable for trademark infringement and counterfeiting as a matter of law. The district court then revised a jury’s damages award finding that Costco was liable for willful or intentional infringement to the tune of more than $21 million. Costco appealed.

On appeal, Costco argued it had successfully raised a question of material fact as to its liability for trademark infringement and counterfeiting and was entitled to present its fair use defense to a jury. The Second Circuit addressed the lower court’s trademark “likelihood of confusion” assessment under its own Polaroid factors and explained that if a factual inference must be drawn to arrive at a particular finding on a Polaroid factor, and if a reasonable trier of fact could reach a different conclusion, the district court may not properly resolve that issue on summary judgment. Here, the Court determined that Costco raised a triable question of fact as to at least three of the Polaroid factors, namely, (1) whether Costco’s customers were actually confused as to the source or affiliation of its diamond engagement rings, (2) whether Costco adopted Tiffany’s trademark in bad faith and (3) whether the relevant population of consumers was sufficiently [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES