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

Due Diligence Deficit Sinks Fraud Claims in Trademark Battle

by | Aug 22, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an independent action asserting “fraud on the court” based on the finding that the alleged fraud on the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) should have been uncovered by the exercise of due diligence in a prior action. Marco Destin Inc. v. Levy et al., Case No. 23-1330 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (Jacobs, Sack, Sullivan, JJ.)

In 2007, L&L Wings filed a lawsuit against Marco Destin and related entities (collectively, Marco Destin) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims of breach of contract and trademark infringement related to Marco Destin’s unauthorized use of L&L’s unregistered trademark WINGS on beach apparel. Although L&L and Marco Destin entered into an allegedly valid temporary licensing agreement in 1998, L&L alleged that Marco Destin continued to use the mark after the agreement expired in 2006. Post-discovery, L&L revealed a recent trademark registration for the WINGS mark, causing L&L and Marco Destin to enter a stipulated order of settlement and dismissal in 2011. Marco Destin paid L&L $3.5 million, ceased using the WINGS mark, and agreed to never bring an action based on the WINGS mark or the 1998 temporary licensing agreement.

More than a decade later, Marco Destin sued L&L again in the Southern District of New York for “fraud on the court” and “fraud” and demanded vacatur, sanctions and damages due to key facts revealed in a separate unrelated Eastern District of North Carolina action. In relevant part, it was discovered that L&L was not the owner of the WINGS mark. Rather, an entity named Shepard Morrow owned the WINGS mark and licensed it to L&L for a brief period in the 1990s. L&L stopped paying the required licensing fees to Shepard Morrow and improperly licensed the unregistered WINGS mark to other entities (including Marco Destin). As a result, the Eastern District of North Carolina granted sanctions against L&L for failing to disclose Shepard Morrow’s trademark registration and license agreement, and L&L’s WINGS mark registration was cancelled as a consequence of L&L’s false representations to the PTO. L&L moved to dismiss Marco Destin’s New York complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the “fraud on the court” claim was an independent action for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(d)(3) and Marco Destin had a reasonable opportunity to discover L&L’s false representations during the initial litigation. Marco Destin appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed, reviewing the dismissal of an independent action for fraud on the court under FRCP 60(d)(3) for abuse of discretion. A party challenging a judgment may file either a timely motion within a fixed time window – one year under FRCP 60(b)(3) – or an independent action any time after that pursuant to FRCP 60(d)(3). Independent actions require a more demanding showing of fraud (such as fraud on the court itself) than a timely motion, and generally claimants seeking equitable relief through independent [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Rules of Evidence Require Weighing Relevance of Evidence Against Potential Prejudice

by | Feb 8, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the exclusion of a drug patent in a medical malpractice case, finding that the highly technical language of the patent would more likely confuse a lay jury than be probative of the issues in the case. Ward v. Schaefer, Case No. 22-1547 (1st Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) (per curiam).

In 2018 Edmund Ward sued his doctor, Ernst Schaefer, claiming that Dr. Schaefer had fraudulently induced Ward to participate in an experimental drug protocol and had otherwise failed to obtain his informed consent. Ward was born with a rare genetic disorder that caused his body to not produce a blood enzyme, lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT), that is critical for cholesterol production. As a result, Ward was at risk of kidney failure and would require either regular dialysis or a kidney transplant. When Ward met Dr. Schaefer, Ward’s condition was deteriorating. Dr. Schaefer suggested that Ward might be a suitable candidate for an experimental enzyme therapy with a drug called ACP-501, and Ward, under an expanded access application, was granted permission to start an experimental protocol.

Ward traveled from his home in Massachusetts to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) facility in Bethesda, Maryland, to receive infusions of ACP-501 and was monitored by Dr. Schaefer in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, Ward’s condition did not improve under the experimental protocol but instead worsened because he was compelled to delay dialysis treatments while using ACP-501. Ward stopped the experimental protocol; began regular dialysis; and sued Dr. Schaefer, the NIH doctors and the drug manufacturer. The district court dismissed the claims against most of the plaintiffs, but the claims of fraud and failure to obtain informed consent against Dr. Schaefer went to trial. Ward’s signed consent form was admitted into evidence at trial, but he claimed he had no memory of discussing it with his doctors or signing it. The jury found in favor of Dr. Schaefer on all claims. Ward appealed.

Ward argued that the court erred in refusing to allow the introduction of the patent for ACP-501 because the patent specified that it was a method for reducing arterial cholesterol in patients not suffering from LCAT deficiency. Ward argued that this language in the patent made clear that the drug was not appropriate for patients like him. The district court ruled that the patent was inadmissible because it had been offered without foundation, and that it had nothing to do with the issues of fraud and informed consent. On appeal, the First Circuit offered a different analysis but arrived at the same outcome, holding that the Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing test “disposes of the matter.”

The First Circuit noted that the patent’s description of ACT-501 “is of absolutely no relevance to Dr. Schaefer’s alleged failure to apprise Ward of the potential risks and rewards of taking the drug through expanded access.” The Court went on to point out that even if the single sentence in the patent pointing to its exclusion for patients with LCAT [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Unfair Play: Unjust Enrichment for Copying and Using Non-Trade-Secret Spreadsheet

by | Nov 9, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim, finding that unjust enrichment claims do not necessarily rise or fall with trade secret misappropriation claims and may be advanced where there is a dispute as to whether a contract’s scope covers the parties’ disagreement. Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP, Case No. 22-21 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2023) (Sacks, Robinson, JJ.) (Jacobs, J., dissenting in part).

Andre Pauwels is a contractor who was retained without written agreement by The Bank of New York Mellon and its parent company (collectively, BNYM) to work on investment valuation. In 2014, while working for BNYM, Pauwels developed the “Pauwels Model” for valuation, which was implemented in Excel spreadsheets. Pauwels typically would send BNYM only the outputs from the Pauwels Model. According to Pauwels, the Pauwels Model and spreadsheets were confidential and proprietary, although the spreadsheets were not password-protected, encrypted or labeled confidential, and Pauwels sometimes shared the spreadsheets with BNYM.

In 2016, BNYM engaged Deloitte and related entities (collectively, Deloitte) to take over Pauwels’s duties. Pauwels never authorized BNYM to share the Pauwels Model spreadsheets with Deloitte, and BNYM assured Pauwels that Deloitte was not using those spreadsheets. In April 2018, Pauwels discovered that BNYM had given Deloitte the spreadsheets and that Deloitte had copied the Pauwels Model. BNYM terminated its relationship with Pauwels in May 2018.

In March 2019, Pauwels sued BNYM and Deloitte for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment and further alleged that BNYM committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. After BNYM and Deloitte moved to dismiss, the district court granted the motion in relevant part. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the trade secret misappropriation claim, citing the 2009 Second Circuit case Faiveley Transp. Malmo v. Wabtec for the proposition that “where an unfair competition claim, and a misappropriation claim arise from the same factual predicate . . . the two claims generally rise or fall together.” The district court dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure to plausibly allege the existence of trade secrets, that BNYM and Deloitte had “misappropriated” anything, or that Pauwels suffered damages. Pauwels appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim as to BNYM. Initially, the Court found that Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim was not duplicative of his trade secret misappropriation claim, distinguishing Faiveley Transp. and explaining that misappropriation is not an element of unjust enrichment claims. The Court rejected BNYM’s argument that Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the contract between the parties. The Court found that Pauwels could maintain his claim because there was “a bona fide dispute . . . whether the scope of an existing contract covers the disagreement between the parties.” According to Pauwels, he was engaged and paid for his advice and expertise only, meaning that BNYM had no right to benefit from the Pauwels Model spreadsheets by sharing them with Deloitte. According to BNYM, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Here’s a Great Concept: Fraud After Registration Is Not a Basis for Cancellation

by | Oct 26, 2023 |

In a split panel decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board and ruled that a fraudulent declaration under Section 15 of the Lanham Act is not a basis for cancellation of an otherwise incontestable registered mark. Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., Case No. 22-1212 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2023) (Dyk, Stark, JJ) (Renya, J., dissenting).

Great Concepts applied to register “DANTANNA’S” as a mark for a “steak and seafood restaurant” in 2003, which resulted in a registration in 2005.

In 2006, Chutter’s predecessor-in-interest, Dan Tana, petitioned the Board to cancel the registration based on an alleged likelihood of confusion with Tana’s common law “DAN TANA” mark for restaurant services. That cancellation proceeding was suspended during a pending civil action in which Tana successfully sued Great Concepts for trademark infringement.

Afterward, the Board dismissed Tana’s cancellation proceeding “based on petitioner’s apparent loss of interest” after he failed to respond to the Board’s order to show cause.

Meanwhile, prior to the finality of the infringement action, Great Concepts’ former attorney, Frederick Taylor, filed a combined declaration of use (pursuant to Section 8 of the Lanham Act) and a declaration of incontestability (pursuant to Section 15). In the Section 15 portion of the declaration, in relation to Great Concepts’ effort to obtain incontestable status for its already registered mark, Taylor falsely declared “there is no proceeding involving said rights pending and not disposed of either in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [PTO] or in the courts.”

Chutter then petitioned the PTO for cancellation of the registration based on Taylor’s false Section 15 affidavit. The Board found that Taylor’s Section 15 declaration was fraudulent and cancelled the registration under Section 14 of the Lanham Act. Great Concepts appealed.

The Federal Circuit was confronted with the issue of whether Section 14, which allows a third party to seek cancellation of a registration when the “registration was obtained fraudulently,” permits the Board to cancel a trademark’s registration based on a fraudulent Section 15 declaration, filed for the purpose of acquiring incontestability status for its already registered mark. Reversing the Board’s decision, the Court held that Section 14 does not permit the Board to cancel a registration in these circumstances.

Focusing on the statutory language, the Federal Circuit noted that Section 14 permits a third party to file “[a] petition to cancel a registration of a mark” … “[a]t any time if” the registered mark’s “registration was obtained fraudulently.” Explaining that the word “‘obtaining’ has a plain and ordinary meaning,” i.e., “[t]o get hold of by effort; to gain possession of; to procure…,” the Court then noted that, by contrast, Taylor’s fraudulent Section 15 declaration only sought incontestable status for its already registered trademark—a different right from registration.

Since “fraud committed in connection with obtaining incontestable status is distinctly not fraud committed in connection with obtaining the registration itself” and since fraud committed in connection with an incontestability declaration is not found among the “numerous bases [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The PTO Isn’t Playing Around: More Sanctions for Improper Trademark Filings

by | Feb 17, 2022 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) continues to uphold its promise to combat fraud and “protect the integrity of the U.S. trademark register” with initiatives to investigate and sanction actions before the PTO that appear to violate the Trademark Rules of Practice or the PTO website terms of use. The latest effort comes in the form of a January 25, 2022, sanctions order signed by the commissioner for trademarks against Abtach, 360 Digital Marketing and Retrocube based on evidence that each of the respondents engaged in an “egregious scheme to deceive and defraud both the PTO and individual applicants in more than 5,500 trademark applications, including engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and intentionally providing false, fictitious, or fraudulent information to the PTO in violation of the PTO’s rules of practice in trademark matters.” According to the sanctions order, the respondents were each given an opportunity to respond to a show cause order issued in November 2021, but the PTO received no responses from the noticed parties.

In the sanctions order, the PTO outlined the activities of the three respondents, which appear to operate as separate entities but are ultimately controlled by Abtach, a Pakistan-based company that is also under investigation by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency for criminal fraud. The PTO’s use of the word “egregious” to describe the respondents’ actions might be an understatement. The sanctions order describes how the respondents set up dozens of websites to hold themselves out as providers of logo designs and low-cost trademark application filing services while forging documents that appear to be issued by the PTO, artificially modifying official PTO documents, threatening customers with legal action if they did not file for registration of their logos through the respondents, intentionally filing applications with errors to delay and increase the cost of the prosecution process, submitting invalid verifications and declarations and demanding payments for unnecessary services or fraudulently inflated fees. The respondents took these actions while failing to employ any US-licensed lawyers to do this work before the PTO.

In determining appropriate sanctions, the PTO considers several factors, including whether the conduct was willful or negligent, whether it was part of a pattern of activity or an isolated event, whether it infected the entire record or was limited to a single submission, whether it was intended to injure a party, what effect it has on the PTO and what is needed to deter similar conduct by others. In this case, the PTO found that the respondents had orchestrated a “widespread, intentional and coordinated effort to defraud both applicants and the USPTO.” Finding the respondents’ activities to be both willful and fraudulent, and to have harmed thousands of applicants while also delaying proceedings in the PTO and “eroding trust in the U.S. trademark registration process,” the PTO ordered termination of all trademark applications and proceedings submitted by the respondents. The PTO will also flag any issued registrations as being subject to a sanctions order. To the extent any victims of the respondents have [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Big Little Lies: Guidelines for Challenging Trademark Acquired Distinctiveness Claims

by | Dec 2, 2021 |

For the second time, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined the standard for demonstrating fraud in a party’s claim of a trademark’s acquired distinctiveness for purposes of registration under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act. The Federal Circuit found that a party challenging an applicant’s Section 2(f) claim based on substantially exclusive use of that trademark does not need to establish secondary meaning in its own mark to undercut the applicant’s claim of substantially exclusive use. The Court also found that use of the mark by any party, regardless of its relationship to the challenger, may undercut a trademark applicant’s claim of substantially exclusive use. Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.R.L., Case No. 21-1011 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2021) (Taranto, J.)

Galperti S.R.L. (Galperti-Italy) filed a US trademark registration for the mark GALPERTI in 2008. In an effort to overcome the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) initial refusal to register the trademark as “primarily merely a surname” (and therefore not registrable unless the mark has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce), Galperti-Italy asserted acquired distinctiveness of the GALPERTI mark under Section 2(f) and stated that the mark had become distinctive of Galperti-Italy’s metal hardware goods through its substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for the five years prior to the trademark registration. In 2013, Galperti-USA, a US company unrelated to Galperti-Italy that operates in the similar business of metal flanges and related products, petitioned to cancel Galperti-Italy’s registration on various grounds, including fraud in Galperti-Italy’s claim of substantially exclusive use of the GALPERTI trademark during the years 2002 – 2007. Galperti-USA claimed that it and other third parties also used the mark during that time, undercutting Galperti-Italy’s “substantially exclusive use” claims.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) rejected Galperti-USA’s cancellation claims, including the fraud claim. Galperti-USA filed its first appeal, and the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s determination that Galperti-USA failed to prove the falsity of Galperti-Italy’s Section 2(f) claim. The Court remanded to the Board to assess whether the other uses of GALPERTI noted by Galperti-USA were significant or inconsequential, which would impact the proof of falsity of Galperti-Italy’s representations to the PTO. On remand, the Board again found that Galperti-USA failed to prove significant—rather than inconsequential—uses of GALPERTI between the years 2002 – 2007 so as to make Galperti-Italy’s representations of “substantially exclusive use” false. Galperti-USA filed its second appeal.

In this appeal, Galperti-USA challenged the Board’s conclusions that (1) Galperti-USA had to show that it acquired secondary meaning in its own GALPERTI trademark during the relevant time period, and (2) Galperti-USA could not undercut Galperti-Italy’s claims of substantially exclusive use with evidence of use by third parties with no privity to Galperti-USA. The Federal Circuit determined that both of the Board’s premises for its fraud analysis were incorrect as a matter of law, and it was therefore unclear whether the Board’s determination was affected by these errors. Taking a closer look at the Board’s conclusions, the Court found that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Texas Appellate Court Clarifies Scope of Remand

by | Sep 9, 2020 |

The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals found that a new trial on misappropriation and fraud claims must include a non-appealed breach of contract claim arising from the same set of facts. Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., Case No. 04-19-00044-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio Aug. 26, 2020) (Watkins, J.).

On June 3, 2020, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals issued an opinion remanding HouseCanary’s Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act and common-law fraud claims for a new trial because the jury instructions permitted the jury to consider both permissible and impermissible theories of recovery. (IP Update, June 18, 2020). Acting on Title Source’s motion for rehearing, the Court issued a substitute opinion with additional language clarifying the scope of the remand and making clear that HouseCanary may elect to recover on its non-appealed breach of contract claim and forego recovery (along with the new trial) on its misappropriation and fraud claims. To the extent HouseCanary sought to recover on its misappropriation and fraud claims, however, the Court held that the breach of contract claim must also be within the scope of the new trial because it arises from the same facts, and failing to include it would therefore create a risk of inconsistent verdicts.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES