Second Circuit Archives - Page 2 of 7

Second Circuit

Hot Mess? Second Circuit Douses Injunction Based on Weak Mark

by Kathleen Lynch | May 2, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion based on an erroneous evaluation of the strength of the “inherently descriptive” marks at issue. City of New York v. Henriquez, Case No. 23-325 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2024) (Livingston, CJ; Walker, Carney, JJ.)

Juan Henriquez is a first responder with the Fire Department of New York (FDNY). Henriquez began organizing what he called “medical special operations conferences” (MSOCs) around the United States. In New York, he partnered with the FDNY. Six years into organizing with the FDNY, the relationship soured. Henriquez then applied to register “Medical Special Operations Conference” as a trademark. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) rejected his application on the basis that the mark was merely descriptive. Henriquez amended his application under § 2(f) of the Lanham Act, which allows registration of descriptive marks that have been used on a “substantially exclusive and continuous basis” for at least five years. The PTO agreed to register his mark.

The FDNY and the City of New York brought suit, seeking to cancel Henriquez’s trademark. Henriquez counterclaimed for trademark infringement of his registered “Medical Special Operations Conference” mark and the related unregistered mark “MSOC”. The district court granted Henriquez a preliminary injunction and barred the FDNY from using “medical,” “special” and “operations” in its branding. The FDNY appealed.

The FDNY raised two issues on appeal: did the district court abuse its discretion by enjoining the FDNY’s use of the marks, and alternatively, did the district court grant an “overbroad” injunction?

The Second Circuit agreed with the FDNY on the first injunction issue and therefore did not reach the second.

The Second Circuit requires analysis of the eight “likelihood of confusion” factors under Polaroid when considering a preliminary injunction. While no one factor is dispositive, the strength of a mark “is especially important,” and therefore the Court is “reluctant to affirm any preliminary injunction founded upon an erroneous strength analysis.”

The Second Circuit found three “missteps” that led the district court to commit legal error by improperly categorizing Henriquez’s two marks as “at least strongly suggestive,” when in fact the marks were inherently descriptive.

First, the Second Circuit explained that the district court did not properly consider Henriquez’s past concessions about his marks. Henriquez registered his mark under § 2(f) of the Lanham Act – conceding descriptiveness. Henriquez also argued to the district court that both of his marks were valid based on secondary meaning, which is only necessary for descriptive marks. Because “[w]hat parties say about their marks matters,” the district court was wrong to ignore admissions of descriptiveness.

Second, the Second Circuit found that the district court did not properly consider the PTO’s characterization of the marks as descriptive. Courts should “accord great weight to the PTO’s conclusions” and only decline to follow those conclusions “for compelling reasons.” The Court noted that the PTO initially rejected Henriquez’s application and only granted registration under § 2(f), which [...]

Continue Reading

Taking the High Road: Ambiguity Regarding “Versions” of Beer Precludes Summary Judgment

by Tessa Kroll | Apr 4, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment denial and determination that the definition of “beer” (which encompassed “other versions and combinations” of beer and malt beverages) in a trademark licensing agreement was ambiguous. Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Case No. 23-810 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2024) (Cabranes, Wesley, Lohier, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

In 2013, Modelo granted Constellation Brands a perpetual sublicense to use Modelo’s trademarks for Corona and Modelo to sell “beer” in the United States. The sublicense defined “beer” as “beer, ale, porter, stout, malt beverages, and any other versions or combinations of the foregoing, including non-alcoholic versions of any of the foregoing.” Several years later, Constellation launched Corona Hard Seltzer and Modelo Ranch Water, both of which are flavored alcoholic seltzers derived from fermented sugar.

Modelo sued Constellation in 2021, alleging that Constellation’s sales of the “Corona” or “Modelo” branded hard seltzers violated the sublicensing agreement because the license for use of the marks on “beer” did not encompass sugar-based hard seltzers. Modelo moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied after determining that the agreement’s definition of “beer” was ambiguous. At trial, the jury found that Modelo had failed to show that the seltzers were not “beer” under the sublicense definition. Modelo appealed.

Modelo asserted that the district court erred in denying summary judgment, arguing that the agreement’s definition of “beer” was unambiguous and challenged the district court’s jury instructions and exclusion of certain evidence at trial.

The Second Circuit agreed that the term “beer” as used in the agreement was ambiguous. The Court noted that a motion for summary judgment in a contract dispute generally may only be granted when the relevant language has a definite meaning and is unambiguous. Modelo argued that the sublicense plainly excluded the hard seltzers because they were not “beer,” “malt beverages,” or versions or combinations of either. Modelo contended that the term “versions” was limited to beverages with characteristics in common with “beer” and “malt beverages” and would not include “malt-free,” “hops-flavorless” hard seltzers.

The Second Circuit assumed for purposes of the opinion that the plain and ordinary meaning of “beer” and “malt beverages” excluded seltzers but reasoned that Corona Hard Seltzer and Modelo Ranch Water could plausibly be understood as a “version” of either. The Court found Modelo’s limited view of the term “versions” unpersuasive, given that the sublicense allowed for “nonalcoholic versions” of beer and malt beverages, even though dictionary definitions uniformly define “beer” as containing alcohol. Because each party’s reading of “versions” was at least plausible, the Court concluded that the relevant contract language was ambiguous and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment denial.

Modelo also argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that undefined words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and improperly instructed the jury to ignore dictionary definitions. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the instructions properly informed the jury [...]

Continue Reading

Same Product in Different Packaging May Constitute Separate Market for Antitrust Purposes

by Sydney E. McDermott | Mar 28, 2024 | Antitrust, Patents

Addressing an issue of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that two medications that contain the same ingredients but are packaged in different forms constitute separate markets for purposes of assessing antitrust violations. Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, Case No. 22-0427 (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2024) (Parker, Lee, Merriam, JJ.)

Regeneron sued Novartis in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and New York state law claims. The specific products at issue were prescription medications used to treat the overproduction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF is a naturally occurring protein but, if overproduced, can lead to eye disorders, including permanent blindness. Both Regeneron and Novartis produce medication to combat overproduction of VEGF. The first form of anti-VEGF medications developed was packaged into vials and administered in a two-step process where a physician draws the product into a syringe then injects the product into the patient’s eye. However, a newer version of anti-VEGF drugs come in a prefilled syringe (PFS) designed to be administered in one step. The PFS packaging carries a significantly lower risk of complications and infections. PFSs have become the “preferred way [to] administer [] anti-VEGF medications.” Novartis moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After the district court granted the motion, Regeneron appealed.

The district court reasoned that original and newer products competed in the same market because they were the exact same medication, just sold in different forms. The Second Circuit disagreed. PFSs reduce the likelihood of complications and have become the preferred form of administration for treatment of VEGF overproduction over vials. The Second Circuit concluded that the district court improperly focused its analysis on whether the two products were “functional substitutes” and not on whether they were “economic substitutes.” The Second Circuit concluded that the district court had applied the improper standard for the relevant market and should instead consider whether the two drugs are economic substitutes. That is to say, the district court should look to whether the different packaging for the VEGF treatments are reasonably interchangeable by consumers. Regeneron alleged they are not due to PFSs’ preferred status among physicians (although PFSs are more costly than vials).

As to the state law claims, the district court dismissed Regeneron’s tortious interference claims as untimely. On appeal, Regeneron argued that Novartis should be equitably estopped from invoking the statute of limitation because the defendants “took steps to prevent Regeneron from learning of Novartis’s tortious interference until after the statute of limitation period had expired.” The Second Circuit found that Novartis concealed a co-inventor’s role in the procurement of a patent, which Regeneron only found out about during subsequent patent litigation, and that such concealment was in violation of a contract. Thus, the Court “conclude[d] that [Regeneron’s] allegations were sufficient to permit Regeneron to invoke equitable estoppel.” Additionally, the complaint “plausibly alleged a claim for tortious interference with contract.”

All That Glitters: Use of Registered Mark To Describe Watch Color Was Fair Use

by Karen Gover | Mar 28, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgement to a luxury-watchmaker defendant, holding that its use of a registered and incontestable trademarked term was fair use because it was used descriptively and in good faith. Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 22-366 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2024) (Wesley, Sullivan, JJ.) (Park, J., dissenting). The case is notable for its analysis of the fair use defense’s good faith prong, which, as the Second Circuit majority notes, “is not litigated frequently.” This was also the element that provoked Judge Park’s dissent, who argued that the majority’s analysis attempts to resolve factual disputes about Breitling’s intentions that should, instead, go to a jury.

“Red gold” and “rose gold” are terms used to describe a gold-copper alloy that causes gold to have a pinkish hue. Sellers of men’s watches sometimes prefer the term “red gold” because “rose gold” sounds effeminate. Solid 21 is a luxury watch and jewelry business that sells a collection of jewelry and watches under the RED GOLD mark, which was registered in 2003 and now has incontestable status. Breitling is a Swiss company that makes and sells luxury watches, some of which it advertises as available in “red gold,” among other color choices. Solid 21 filed a trademark infringement suit against Breitling, alleging that its use of the term “red gold” was “likely to cause confusion, reverse confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the source” of Breitling’s watches. Breitling moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the term “red gold” was generic, and the trademark registration was invalid, or alternatively, that its use of the term fell under the Lanham Act’s fair use defense, which allows use of a protected mark to describe one’s goods so long as the use is in good faith and not used as a mark.

Initially, the district court denied Breitling’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Breitling could have used terms like “rose gold” to describe its products and thus did not satisfy the descriptive use requirement. However, on reconsideration, the district court decided that the mere existence of alternative terms for the alloy did not preclude summary judgment, and that Breitling’s materials showed clearly that it was using the term “red gold” descriptively to indicate hue. The district court also found that Breitling satisfied the good faith element, even if Breitling was aware of Solid 21’s RED GOLD mark. Solid 21 appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that Breitling’s advertising materials clearly showed that it used the term “red gold” as a descriptor for color and not as a mark. The Court rejected the argument that this conclusion as to descriptive use was undermined by the availability of the term “rose gold” as an alternative descriptor and pointed out that Solid 21 bears the risk of some consumer confusion in choosing to trademark a descriptive term that describes a color of metal. Finally, the Court found that Breitling’s use of [...]

Continue Reading

Deception Inspection: Attorney Faces Discipline for Citing Fake Law

by Amol Parikh | Feb 8, 2024 | Technology

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit referred an attorney for potential further disciplinary measures after the attorney cited a nonexistent case created by ChatGPT. Park v. Kim, Case No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024) (Parker, Nathan, Merriam, JJ.) (per curiam).

Minhye Park sued David Dennis Kim for an action related to a wage dispute. During the district court proceedings, Park continually and willfully failed to respond to and comply with the district court’s discovery orders. Kim eventually moved to dismiss based on Park’s failure to comply with court orders and discovery obligations. Park opposed. After weighing the requirements of Rules 37 and 41(b), the district court concluded that dismissal was appropriate. Park appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Park’s noncompliance amounted to “sustained and willful intransigence in the face of repeated and explicit warnings from the court that the refusal to comply with court orders . . . would result in the dismissal of [the] action.”

Separately, the Second Circuit addressed the conduct of Park’s attorney during the appeal, including a citation to a nonexistent case that was generated using the artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT. After receiving Park’s reply brief, the Court ordered Park to submit a copy of one of the cited decisions. Park’s attorney responded that she was “unable to furnish a copy of the decision,” explaining that she had difficulty locating a relevant case through traditional legal research tools and therefore used ChatGPT to provide the case caption ultimately cited in the brief.

The Second Circuit found that citation to a nonexistent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel, and thus referred the attorney to the Court’s Grievance Panel for further investigation and consideration of a referral to the Court’s admission committee. The Court explained that any attorney appearing before it is bound to exercise professional judgment and responsibility, which impose a duty to certify that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact and legally tenable. Recognizing that ChatGPT is a significant technological advancement, the Court explained that the use of such tools does not excuse an attorney from separately ensuring that submissions to the Court are accurate or legally tenable. The Court concluded that referral to the Grievance Panel was warranted because the brief presented a false statement of law and the attorney made no inquiry at all, let alone a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the arguments presented. The Court also ordered the attorney to provide a copy of the ruling to her client.

Practice Note: The Second Circuit noted that several courts around the United States have proposed or enacted rules addressing the use of AI tools before a court but explained that such rules are unnecessary to inform attorneys that court submissions should be accurate.

Parody of Iconic Sneaker Isn’t Entitled to Heightened First Amendment Protection

by Karen Gover | Dec 14, 2023 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining use of a trademark and trade dress associated with an iconic sneaker design over a First Amendment artistic expression defense. Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc., Case No. 22-1006 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2023) (per curiam). This case is the first time a federal appeals court has applied the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, which clarified when heightened First Amendment protections apply to expressive uses of another’s trademark and trade dress.

MSCHF Product Studio is a Brooklyn-based art collective known for provocative works that critique consumer culture. It sells its works in limited releases during prescribed sales periods called “drops.” It promoted and sold a shoe called the “Wavy Baby,” which is a distorted, corrugated version of the iconic black-and-white Vans Old Skool sneaker. MSCHF claimed that the product was a commentary on consumerism in sneakerhead culture and that the Wavy Baby shoes were not meant to be worn but were instead “collectible work[s] of art.”

MSCHF promoted the shoes using the musician Tyga. Vans sent MSCHF a cease-and-desist letter and a week later filed a six-count complaint in federal court, including a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The following day, Vans filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to have the court enjoin the sale of the Wavy Baby shoes. Nevertheless, MSCHF proceeded with its pre-planned drop of the Wavy Baby sneakers and sold 4,306 pairs of the Wavy Baby in one hour.

About a week later, after oral argument on the temporary restraining order (TRO) motion, the district court granted Vans’s motion. The district court concluded that Vans would likely prevail in showing a likelihood of consumer confusion and rejected MSCHF’s contention that the Wavy Baby was entitled to special First Amendment protections because it was an artistic parody. MSCHF appealed.

The Second Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s Jack Daniel’s decision. In that case, Jack Daniel’s sued the maker of a squeaky dog toy that resembled the iconic whiskey bottle and used puns involving dog excrement in place of the actual language of the Jack Daniel’s label. In a unanimous decision, the Court clarified that special First Amendment protections (as used in the Rogers test for expressive works that incorporate another’s trademark) do not apply when a trademark is used as a source indicator—that is, “as a mark.”

The Second Circuit concluded that the Jack Daniel’s case “forecloses MSCHF’s argument that Wavy Baby’s parodic message merits higher First Amendment scrutiny” because, even though the product is a parody, the Rogers test does not apply if the mark is also used as a source identifier. The Second Circuit drew a direct parallel between Wavy Baby and the punning dog toy in the Jack Daniel’s case, noting that in both cases the infringing product evoked the protected trademark and [...]

Continue Reading

All the Way Up to the Second Circuit, and Back

by Vincent Li, PhD | Nov 16, 2023 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a grant of summary judgment made prior to discovery, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding a draft contract agreement admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 1003 notwithstanding sworn testimony questioning its contents. Eric A. Elliott, aka Fly Havana v. Joseph Anthony Cartagena et al., (2d. Cir. Oct. 17, 2023) (Merriam, Nardini, JJ.)

The dispute in this case centered on whether Eric Elliott was properly credited and compensated for his contribution in writing the song “All the Way Up.” Both Elliott and Joseph Anthony Cartagena (also known as “Fat Joe”) acknowledged that Elliott had signed an agreement regarding the song, but both parties were unable to locate the original agreement. Instead, Cartagena submitted a draft that he claimed was an authentic duplicate. This draft purported to assign all of Elliott’s rights to the song to an entity.

Elliott disputed the authenticity of the draft, claiming that there were numerous additional and different material terms in the agreement he signed. Nonetheless, the district court found the evidence admissible under FRE 1003 and 1004 and entered summary judgment in favor of defendants prior to discovery being conducted in the case. Elliot appealed.

The Second Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion and vacated. FRE 1002, also known as the “best evidence rule,” states that “[a]n original writing . . . is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.” If an original document is unavailable, a duplicate may still be admissible under FRE 1003, which states: “A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.”

Here, the district court relied on Cartagena’s sworn testimony that he printed the draft at the complex where he lived and brought it with him to a meeting with Elliott. The district court disregarded Elliott’s sworn testimony in response to Cartagena, which suggested that the draft was not identical to the version Elliott signed. While the draft specified that the rights to the song would be assigned to an entity, Elliott averred that the version he signed “seemed to state that [he] was going to be compensated and credited as a writer.” Given this factual dispute, the Second Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the draft as a duplicate under FRE 1003 and granting summary judgment, particularly without the benefit of discovery.

The Second Circuit concluded that there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether Elliott validly assigned all his rights and whether any such purported assignment precluded Elliott’s claims. Given the issues regarding the authenticity of the draft and the genuine dispute of material fact, the Court found summary judgment improper.

However, a duplicate may also be admissible under FRE 1004, which states: “[a]n original is not required and other evidence of the content [...]

Continue Reading

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

by Maxwell C. Preston | Nov 9, 2023 | Trade Secrets

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

Cover-Up Isn’t Covered Under VARA

by Vincent Li, PhD | Aug 31, 2023 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) does not prohibit covering an artist’s mural where there is no damage to the mural. Samuel Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Inc., Case No. 21-2904 (2d. Cir. Aug. 18, 2023) (Livingston, Cabranes, Kovner, JJ.)

In 1993, Samuel Kerson and Vermont Law School entered into a written agreement for Kerson to paint two murals on the walls of the law school’s community center. The completed murals were publicly viewable and depicted several distinct scenes spanning the history of US slavery, from the capture of Africans in their homelands through the abolitionist movement.

Because of complaints from community members regarding how the murals presented Black people, the law school considered options for the murals’ removal. The school decided to conceal the murals behind a barrier of fabric-cushioned acoustic panels. The panels were constructed such that they were suspended approximately two inches away from the murals’ surface and did not touch the murals.

Kerson filed suit seeking to enjoin the installation of the acoustic panels on the theory that they amounted to a violation of his rights under VARA. Under the relevant part of VARA, the author of a “work of visual art” “shall have the right”:

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

17 U.S.C. §§ 106A(a)(3)(A)-(B).

In the district court, Kerson argued that blocking the public from viewing his work of art would amount to the “destruction” or “intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification” of the murals. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the law school. Kerson appealed.

Kerson argued that permanently concealing the murals with a solid barrier of acoustic panels modified and thus “destroy[ed]” his work. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that covering a work of art did not amount to “destruction” under VARA. The Court explained that Kerson’s argument did not comport to the conventional understanding of the word “destruction” under the plain meaning of the statute. The acoustic panels were designed to not touch the murals, let alone destroy them.

The Second Circuit also rejected Kerson’s argument that covering a work of art amounts to “modification.” Under VARA, “modification” would entail a change to the work of art that alters some portion of it without radically transforming the whole. For example, an additional brush stroke, erasure of content or the reorganization of a movable component would be a modification of a work of art. Modifications do not include concealing the entire work behind a solid barrier.

The Second Circuit also rejected Kerson’s argument that concealing the murals was [...]

Continue Reading

Electra Powers Second Circuit’s False Endorsement Analysis

by Nitya Anand | Jun 8, 2023 | Trademarks

Following on the heels of its 2021 decision in Electra v. 59 Murray, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the summary judgment denial of a Lanham Act claim related to false endorsement premised upon the unauthorized use of photographs in connection with promotional materials. Souza et. al. v. Exotic Island Enterprs., Inc., Case No. 21-2149 (2d Cir. May 19, 2023) (Lynch, Nardini, Menashi, JJ.) The Second Circuit also affirmed the district court’s summary judgment denial of Lanham Act false advertising and New York state right of publicity claims.

The operator of a gentlemen’s club used photographs of current and former professional models in social media posts promoting the club. The photographs were obtained without the models’ permission through a third-party vendor. The models sued the club operator asserting false endorsement, false advertising and right of publicity violations. The parties filed dueling summary judgment motions in February 2021. During the pendency of those motions, the Second Circuit decided Electra, a case involving overlapping plaintiffs suing on several of the same causes of action based on highly similar fact patterns. The district court subsequently granted the club operator’s motion for summary judgment and denied the models’ motion. The models appealed.

The Second Circuit relied heavily on its Electra decision to affirm the district court’s denial of the models’ false endorsement claim. To prevail on a false endorsement claim under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, the models were required to prove that there was a likelihood of confusion between their goods or services and those of the club operator. Likelihood of consumer confusion is evaluated using the eight Polaroid factors:

Strength of the trademark
Similarity of the marks
Proximity of the products and their competitiveness with one another
Evidence that the senior user may bridge the gap by developing a product for sale in the market of the alleged infringer’s product
Evidence of actual consumer confusion
Evidence that the imitative mark was adopted in bad faith
Respective quality of the products
Sophistication of consumers in the relevant market.

First, the models argued that the district court oversimplified the “strength of the mark” analysis (factor 1) to focus only on the recognizability of the mark. The Second Circuit disagreed, explaining that not only was Electra’s focus on recognizability binding precedent but also, that factor was required to be evaluated in the context of the mark’s strength in the false endorsement context (i.e., as a function of the extent to which the endorser’s identity could be linked with the product being sold). In other words, without an adequate showing that the models were recognized in the social media posts promoting the club, there could be no case of endorsement, let alone false endorsement.

Second, the models challenged the district court’s exclusion of their expert testimony on certain Polaroid factors. The district court excluded surveys conducted by the models’ expert as unreliable because they suffered from various methodological flaws and, therefore, did not provide a reliable [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS