Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

Skechers is suing Steven Madden for allegedly copying Skechers’ Twinkle Toes shoe designs. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office granted U.S. Patent No. D571,095 to Skechers covering its Twinkle Toes toe cap design for shoes. In addition to patent protection, Skechers claims that it is the owner of an inherently distinctive trade dress in its Twinkle Toes footwear designs. Skechers defines its trade dress as the combination of the following design elements: “a vulcanized canvass sneaker; a toe cap adorned with crystals, rhinestones, sequins or a plurality of other similar shiny elements; and, canvass uppers distinguished by colorful art designs or patterns.” For trade dress to be protectable, it must be non-functional. And Skechers asserts that the Twinkle Toes design is non-functional and simply conveys a distinctive appearance that is a source indicator.

Skechers further alleges that it has expended many millions of dollars promoting and advertising its trade dress and, based on extensive, frequent, and ongoing advertising, marketing, sales and distribution, the trade dress has acquired distinctiveness, which indicates that the shoes emanate from a single source. In other words, consumers recognize and associate the shoe design with Skechers.

Steve Madden’s “Stevies” brand shoes are accused of including “a vulcanized canvas sneaker, a toe cap adorned with crystal, rhinestones, sequins or a plurality of other similar shiny elements, and canvas uppers distinguished by colorful art designs or patterns” that infringe the subject patent. Further, Skechers contends that the Stevies footwear line so closely resembles the Twinkle toes trade dress that it is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception as to an affiliation, connection, or association of Steve Maddens’ footwear with Skechers. Skechers also contends that “Defendants have acted willfully, in bad faith and with the intent to confuse and mislead the public and unfairly trade on the substantial and valuable goodwill associated with Skechers' Twinkle Toes® Trade Dress and to capitalize on Skechers' highly respected reputation as a stylish, high quality footwear company.”

Design patents provide the owner with several competitive advantages. For example, design patents, during their fourteen year lifespan, can be used to legally prevent competing products from entering the market while the owner also establishes trade dress rights by attaining secondary meaning. Trade dress rights can then be used to perpetually protect the product configuration for as long as the trade dress is being used as a source identifier. Also, unlike utility patents, 35 USC § 289 allows a disgorgement of the defendants’ profits from any infringing sales. Design patents provide fashion designers protection for their clothing and shoe designs, which are considered useful articles that are not protectable by copyrights. Indeed, Steve Madden was recently sued by Jeffrey Campbell for design patent and trade dress infringement for allegedly copying the Lita shoe.

Additionally, a patented design may be infringed regardless of distinguishing trademarks or labels applied to the product that can defeat a trade dress claim. In L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of design patent infringement but reversed the trade dress infringement claim because defendants’ conspicuous labels and trademarks applied to the shoes made confusion among consumers unlikely. Although the Lanham Act also provides for disgorgement of the infringer’s profits, a double recovery is not allowed for infringement of the same design patent and trade dress. See, e.g., Contour Chair Lounge Co. v. True-Fit Chair, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 704, 719, 1 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1353, 1364 (E.D. Mo. 1986) ("Plaintiff is also entitled to lost profits for [trade dress infringement]; however, plaintiff has already recovered these damages under its patent claim.").

The case is Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Steven Madden, Ltd. et al., CV11-07295 PA (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Tacori suffered another loss in its continuing copyright and trade dress infringement lawsuit against rival jewelry designer Scott Kay. The Court previously denied Tacori’s ex-parte application for a temporary restraining order, but that did not deter Tacori’s attempts to prevent Scott Kay’s sales of its Heaven’s Gate jewelry collection. Not surprisingly, the Court denied Tacori’s preliminary injunction bid, which was now focused solely on the copyright issue.

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Although a plaintiff must make a showing on each factor, the Ninth Circuit employs a sliding scale approach where “a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, a preliminary injunction may still issue where there are “serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff . . . , so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court found that Tacori may be able to meet “its low burden of establishing copyright ownership” because the “requisite level of creativity is extremely low.” In order to show copying, Tacori had to establish Scott Kay’s access to its reverse crescent design and that the Heaven’s Gates rings were substantially similar. Scott Kay admitted that it was aware of Tacori’s design, but the Court found that the parties’ respective designs were not substantially similar.

In applying the extrinsic test, the court compared the two designs and found that neither the repeating reverse crescent design nor the diamond set in the triangular spaces between the openings is original. In addition, the Court found that Tacori “failed to provide competent expert testimony for this test” as its expert did not examine the parties' rings. For the intrinsic test, the Court found it unlikely that the ordinary audience for these very expensive rings “would find Defendant’s rings so similar in total concept and feel to Plaintiff’s rings that they infringe Plaintiff’s copyrights.” Further, the Court that Tacori failed to establish irreparable harm “absent injunctive relief, that the balance of the equities tips in its favor, or that an injunction would be in the public’s interest.”

The case is Tacori Enterprises v. Scott Kay, Inc., CV11-1565 DSV (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Los Angeles, CA – Jeffrey Campbell is taking an aggressive approach to protecting its shoe designs by recently suing Forever 21 for allegedly copying six of its shoe designs. Last week, Jeffrey Campbell filed a new design patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Steve Madden for allegedly copying Jeffrey Campbell’s “Lita” shoe design. Although Jeffrey Campbell did not have any patents for the six shoe designs in the Forever 21 lawsuit, it was granted Patent No. D634,532 for the Lita shoe design. Having a design patent provides greater protection for fashion designs than trade dress alone and the causes of action can always be combined, as Jeffrey Campbell has done here. Campbell claims that Steve Madden’s $169.95 Carnby-L shoe design “is believed to be a copy or knockoff of Jeffry Campbell’s Lita Shoe design.” Steve Madden is no stranger to trademark lawsuits involving shoes, having previously settled with Asics for allegedly copying its stripe design.

The patent provides another advantage by keeping copycats away while the product’s configuration attains secondary meaning in the consumers’ minds. Plaintiff contends that since “the release of the Lita Shoe by Jeffrey Campbell in or about the summer of 2010, the internet has been ablaze with, and blogs have raved about,” the shoe design. The significant publicity and promotion of the Lita shoe design has allegedly led to significant sales and acclaim, and widespread public recognition of the Lita Shoe Trade Dress, which is defined as:

Continue reading "Jeffrey Campbell Sues Steve Madden For Copying Lita Shoe Design" »

Los Angeles, CA – Following the trend of fashion designers filing trade dress infringement lawsuits to protect designs not covered by copyright law, Jeffrey Campbell is suing Forever 21 for allegedly copying six shoe designs. Like Givenchy v. BCBG and Marc Jacobs v. Christian Audigier before it, Jeffrey Campbell is forced to use trade dress law to protect its designs because copyright law views fashion products, for example pursues and shoes, as useful articles that cannot be copyrighted. Unlike UGG, however, many fashion designers are unaware that fashion designs can be protected through design patents, which must be filed within one year of the design’s public disclosure. Without a design patent, Jeffrey Campbell must now attempt the tougher climb of proving trade dress infringement.

Jeffrey Campbell claims that its shoe designs “have become the footwear brand to know in the United States” over the last ten years and that customers, based on extensive marketing and advertising, recognize the shoe designs as Jeffrey Campbell’s trade dress. Plaintiff contends that Forever 21, “having a business model that . . . focuses on selling knockoffs or cheaper copies of products designed by higher-end fashion companies,” has intentionally copied the Cast Sandal, 99 Boot, Splendid Sandal, City Wrap Boot, Alicia Fur Boot, and Swansong Sandal. Jeffrey Campbell also asserts that Forever 21’s intentional copying violates federal and state unfair competition laws. The amount of monetary damages are currently unknown to Plaintiff, but it is also seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Forever 21's future sales of the shoe designs.

The case is Jeffrey Campbell LLC v. Forever 21, Inc., CV11-04619 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Los Angeles, CA – Tacori Enterprises sued Scott Kay for copyright and trade dress infringement over sales of jewelry incorporating a repeating crescent design. Tacori filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to prevent further sales of Scott Kay’s Heaven’s Gate Collection that allegedly infringes Tacori’s purported copyrights and trade dress.

Although the Court found that Tacori is likely – because of the “extremely low burden” – to establish copyright ownership, Tacori had not shown that “it is likely to pass either the extrinsic or intrinsic test” to prove infringement. The extrinsic test “requires a court to examine the similarities between the copyrighted and challenged works and then determine whether the similar elements are protectable or unprotectable.” “The intrinsic test is a subjective comparison that focuses on whether the ordinary, reasonable audience would find the works substantially similar in the total concept and feel of the works.”

The Court relied on Scott Kay’s submission of third-party evidence having similar elements of the crescent design at issue to find that many of the design elements were likely not protectable. As for the intrinsic test, the Court found it unlikely that a reasonable audience for the rings “would find them substantially similar in total concept and feel in light of their differences.”

In evaluating the functionality prong of the trade dress claim, the Court found that “[b]ased on the evidence submitted regarding the common use of crescent designs on rings, if Plaintiff was granted exclusive use of its Reverse Crescent Trade Dress, it would likely put its competitors at a significant, non-reputation-related disadvantage.” Also, the use of the common crescent design by others proved detrimental to Tacori’s purported secondary meaning evidence. Lastly, the Court found that Tacori could not establish a likelihood of confusion because there was no evidence that Scott Kay intended to adopt Tacori’s design and the expensive nature of the jewelry would require great care in purchasing decisions.

A copy of the order is available here. The case is Tacori Enterprises v. Scott Kay, Inc., CV11-1565 DSV (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Los Angeles, CA – San Antonio Winery filed a trademark and trade dress declaratory judgment action against Banfi Products. San Antonio’s Stella Rosa Imperiale Brachetto d’Acqui wine is made from Brachetto grapes that are sourced from the D.O.C.G. region of Brachetto d’Acqui. San Antonio has registered its Stella Rosa design trademark with the USPTO. Banfi’s Rosa Regale Brachetto d’Acqui wine is also made from Brachetto grapes sourced from the same region.

Banfi’s cease and desist letter to San Antonio allegedly contended that Banfi had protectable rights in the “combination of the label design and placement, the color scheme, the bottle shape and color, and the wording on Banfi’s product is distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning such that the designated combination of elements constitutes protectable trade dress and that the designated trade dress is not functional.”

San Antonio disagrees and seeks the Court’s ruling that its wine bottle “does not infringing any valid, enforceable trademark or trade dress rights of Banfi under any provisions of the Lanham Act or constitute unfair competition under any state unfair competition laws.” The case is San Antonio Winery, Inc. v. Banfi Products Corporation, CV10-9245 MMM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Givenchy, the luxury merchandise manufacturer, seems to be jumping on the trade dress bandwagon (see here and here) to prevent copying of its purse design. Instead of protecting its purse design with a design patent, Givenchy claims that its Nightingale Trade Dress “includes without limitation a removable strap, two double seemed handles, a flat bottom and decorative double stitched horizontal and vertical stripes on the exterior that visually separate the bag into four distinct quadrants.” Givenchy is going to have to show that the consuming public recognizes the trade dress as identifying the source of the purse. Givenchy claims that it has earned in excess of fifty (50) million dollars in revenue from the sale of the Nightingale handbags and that the public recognizes the trade dress.

BCBG is accused of trying to profit from Givenchy’s goodwill by selling “its knock-off ‘Rembrandt’ and other handbags that deliberately copy, line-by-line and stitch-by-stitch distinctive, non-functional elements of Givenchy’s Nightingale Trade Dress.” In addition to monetary damages, Givenchy seeks an injunction prohibiting further sales of BCBG’s handbags. The case is Givenchy S.A. v. BCBG Max Azria Group, Inc. CV10-8394 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

New York -- Upper Deck will reportedly pay MLB a "substantial sum" in addition to $2.4 million to settle the trademark infringement and breach of contract lawsuit, according to Reuters. On January 31, 2010, Major League Baseball Properties sued the Upper Deck Company for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and breach of contract because Upper Deck continued to print baseball trading cards after its license was terminated. Details blogged here.

It appears that Upper Deck learned from its long and drawn out court battle with Konami. Only after the California District Court ruled that Upper Deck counterfeited hundreds of thousands of Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards, did Upper Deck decide to settle on the first day of trial. Details here. Conversely, by settling early with MLB, Upper Deck can avoid possible adverse rulings and focus on reviving its business.

The case is Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. The Upper Deck Company, LLC, 10-cv-732-RWS (SDNY 2010).

Car racing legend Carroll Shelby sued Factory Five Racing in California last year for trademark and trade dress infringement (details here). The District Court in Los Angeles granted Factory Five’s motion and transferred the case to Massachusetts (details here and here). The Massachusetts District Court has now dismissed Shelby’s Daytona Coupe trade dress action with prejudice (it cannot be re-filed) and has dismissed the rest of the complaint without prejudice. The Court, however, declined to dismiss Shelby’s lawsuit against co-defendant Internet Community Partners, LLC – doing business as ffcobra.com. (Order is available here).

With respect to the Daytona Coup trade dress infringement claim, the Court held that it was barred by doctrine of res judicata and the terms of the settlement agreement:

In this case, the settlement agreement resolved the Type 65 trade dress claims and did not bar FFR from using the Type 65 kits, which have apparently not broadened or changed in the intervening years. Under the settlement agreement, “Shelby dismisse[d] with prejudice all claims that have been asserted or could have been asserted relative to the trade dress or designs of FFR’s kits, including but not limited to the kits known as the 427 Roadster and the Type 65 Coupe.” (FFR’s Mem., Ex. B ¶ 9 (emphasis added).) Shelby’s argument that the first suit only involved the 427 S/C contradicts the plain language of the settlement, which dismissed all claims “relative to the trade dress or designs of FFR’s kits” involving Factory Five’s Type 65 Coupe, not merely those relating to the trade dress of the 427 S/C. Moreover, the Final Judgment included numerous, specific references to both the name and design of the Daytona Coupe.

As to the rest of Shelby’s trademark and unfair competition claims, the Court dismissed them because Shelby failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to cure as mandated by the settlement agreement, but because Factory Five alleges that it has removed all hyperlinks and metatags complained of, refiling should be futile:

In light of Shelby’s failure to comply with the notice and cure provision of the settlement agreement, the remaining claims against it will be dismissed without prejudice to provide the requisite thirty day opportunity to cure and allow the parties a chance to resolve this dispute in accordance with it.

Internet Community Partners did not fare as well at this early stage of litigation, but it appears that the Court indicated that defendants have a valid First Amendment and fair use defense:

To be sure, use of a name in a forum may be in good faith or protected by the First Amendment. However, when all reasonable inferences are drawn in Shelby’s favor, dismissal on that basis is not warranted at this early stage of the litigation.

The case is Carrol Shelby et al. v. Factory Five Racing, Inc. et al., 09-CV-10281-PBS (D.Mass. 2009).

Los Angeles, CA – Designer Christian Audigier’s Nervous Tattoo, Inc. is being sued by Marc Jacobs’ company for trade dress and trademark infringement over purse designs. Marc Jacobs designs apparel and accessories, including purses, and has a pending application for its random “Marc Jacobs” scrambled trademark. Marc Jacobs has applied the scrambled trademark to the inside lining of the “Marc Jacobs Pretty Nylon” tote bag. And the tote bag’s “size, shape, color or color combinations, product design, texture, and selection and arrangement of materials and accessories” are claimed to serve as its trade dress.

Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of selling tote bags that “bear trade dress that unlawfully copies or imitates Plaintiffs’ unique, distinctive, and non-functional Marc Jacobs Pretty Nylon Tote Trade Dress and/or that unlawfully bear marks confusingly similar to the Marc Jacobs Scrambled Trademark.” In addition, Plaintiffs assert claims for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and constructive trust.

Since the parties’ products apparently bear their respective trademarks, it will be interesting to see if customers are confused about the source of the products. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1045-46 (2nd Cir. 1992) (holding that prominently displayed trade names on the respective products "weigh[ed] heavily against a finding of consumer confusion resulting from the overall look of the packaging") (preliminary injunction denied).

The case is Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC et al. v. Eagles Clubs International, Inc., et al., CV10-00456 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010).