Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

Santa Ana, CA – BT Beverage Company sued The Coca Cola Company for a declaration of no trademark or design patent infringement. BT sells beverages in bottles that are shaped like sports balls including baseballs, basketballs, soccer balls, and golf balls. BT has filed numerous trademark applications with the USPTO to register its various bottle designs.

During the holidays, Coca Cola sells its beverages in spherical bottles shaped to be Christmas tree ornaments. Coca Cola’s bottle shape, however, was itself the subject of a prior claim of infringement by O-Company and OGO USA. In response, Coca Cola filed an opposition proceeding at the TTAB and also filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee. It appears that the parties resolved the dispute by assigning the disputed application and the resultant trademark registration – which is the subject of the instant lawsuit – to Coca Cola.

BT alleges that in September of 2009, Coca Cola sent a cease and desist letter charging infringement of the trade dress bottle design and Design Patent No. D554,523. BT responded by using Coca Cola’s previous stance against it by denying that Coca Cola had an exclusive right to round shaped bottles for beverage products. The parties’ inability to resolve the dispute resulted in this lawsuit. The case is GT Beverage Company, LLC v. The Coca Cola Company, SACV10-00209 JVS (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).

Los Angeles, CA – Santa Barbara Winery sued Foster’s Wine Estates for trademark infringement, unfair competition and cancellation of trademark registration. Plaintiff alleges that it has used the “Santa Barbara Winery” trademark since 1962, but has not – for almost 50 years – sought to register its trademark with the USPTO. Plaintiff should have read our article. The Defendant, on the other hand, has immediately sought to register its “Santa Barbara Wine Company” trademark with the USPTO, which mark shall shortly register on the Supplemental Register. Defendants would have also benefited from our article by selecting a strong trademark that would immediately register on the Principal Register.

Plaintiff alleges that “in using the mark and label ‘Santa Barbara Wine Company’ in connection with wine offered for sale in commerce, Defendant has intentionally sought to infringe upon Plaintiff’s Santa Barbara Winery trademark, to cause confusion and mistake amongst consumers, the trade, and those who come into post-purchase contact with its goods, as to whether its goods are connected, affiliated or associated with Plaintiff, and to re-direct confused consumers to products Defendants are selling that are not affiliated with Plaintiff.”

I only recently learned that the UB40 “Red Red Wine” song was actually written by Neil Diamond. Here’s Neil Diamond’s version:

I enjoy UB40’s version more:

The case is Santa Barbara Winery, Inc. v. Foster’s Wine Estates Americas Company, CV10-1026 JHN (C.D. Cal. 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).

LA, CA – Dr. Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, sued the new Death Row records for trademark infringement, breach of contract, violation of the right of publicity, and unfair competition. The complaint claims that nothing has changed at Death Row: “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” and alleges:

Whether you get thugged or the check just doesn't come, it's all the same -- someone else has your money. And whether it's a platitude-spouting, self-proclaimed soccer mom or a supposed gangster who isn't paying you, it doesn't change the fact that you're not getting paid. Read the complaint here.

The rap star and record producer co-founded Death Row records in 1991 with Marion “Suge” Knight and began the gangsta rap movement. Few, however, remember Dr. Dre’s “less Gangsta” side when he was on the turntables for the World Class Wreckin Cru – but I digress. The parties verbally agreed that in exchange for payment of royalties to Dr. Dre, Death Row received a non-exclusive license to release sound recordings that he produced, composed and/or performed on. Dr. Dre’s first record release under the Death Row label was “The Chronic” in 1992, which was a huge success.

By 1996, Dr. Dre wanted to "escape" Death Row and entered into a written agreement where Dr. Dre would relinquish his 50% ownership interest in Death Row and assign all copyrights in his recordings. However, the copyrights were assigned to the extent that the “master recordings shall only be distributed in the manners heretofore distributed.” In return, Death Row agreed to pay royalties to Dr. Dre from the sales of the sound recordings that he wrote, produced, or performed on. The transfer included other smash hits such as Doggystyle, Murder Was the Case, and Above the Rim.

In 2006, Death Row filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and at the bankruptcy auction in January of 2009, Wideawake Entertainment, whose CEO is a trademark attorney, purchased Death Row’s assets. The complaint alleges that in the Spring of 2009, Defendants were put on notice that the “1996 Agreement prohibited defendants from releasing The Chronic in any manner in which it was not distributed prior to the 1996 Agreement.” Dr. Dre further alleges that defendants brazenly ignored the agreement and released an album and DVD entitled The Chronic Re-Lit & From the Vault. The release of “Re-Lit” is “a calculated breach of the 1996 Agreement; a willful violation of plaintiff’s rights to his name and likeness, and his trademark, “Dr. Dre”…; and a fraud on the public…”

Dr. Dre also claims that Defendants have breached the agreements by failing to pay him royalties since 1996, by digitally distributing The Chronic, and including his recordings in a compilation album entitled “Death Row’s Greatest Hits.”

Does “fear for your life” excuse a thirteen-year delay in filing a breach of contract lawsuit and overcome the statute of limitations issue? Subpoena Vanilla Ice regarding negotiations with Mr. Knight.

The case is Andre Young v. Wideawake Death Row Entertainment, LLC et al., CV10-01019 CAS (C.D.Cal. 2010).

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).

New York -- Major League Baseball Properties sued the Upper Deck Company for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and breach of contract because Upper Deck continues to print baseball trading cards after its license was terminated. A copy of the complaint is available here. MLBP pulls no punches and extensively refers to the recent Court ruling that Upper Deck counterfeited hundreds of thousands of Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards, its agreement to a multi-million dollar settlement and permanent injunction (details here).

MLBP ended its twenty-year relationship with Upper Deck and entered into an exclusive agreement with Topps "to use the MLB trademarks on trading cards for retail distribution beginning on January 1, 2010." MLBP also alleges that Upper Deck failed to pay in excess of $2 Million under its prior licensing agreement. "Notwithstanding the expiration of the Upper Deck License Agreements as of October 31, 2009, and the absence of any new license from MLBP authorizing the use of the MLB Marks, Upper Deck has begun manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale, and selling at least three trading card sets featuring cards using the MLB Marks, including, without limitation, the MLB Uniform Trade Dress and MLB Caps and Helmet Logos." In addition to monetary damages, MLBP seeks to enjoin Upper Deck's manufacture and sale of the 2009 Signature Stars Series, 2009 Ultimate Collection Series, and 2010 Unauthorized Series I trading cards.

All may not be lost for Upper Deck, however, because it could rely on the denial of preliminary injunction ruling in the similarly situated Pacific Trading Card case. The case is Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. The Upper Deck Company, LLC, 10-cv-732-RWS (SDNY 2010).

During Super Bowl week, the NFL is usually busy cracking down on church congregations showing the game in violation of the league's copyrights. After not caring about the New Orleans Saints for over the last forty years (aka, the "Ain'ts" years), the NFL thought it would be a good public relations boost to send numerous cease and desist letters to merchants that were selling "Who Dat?" t-shirts and memorabilia. Who Dat? Who Dat trying to jump on Da Who Dat bandwagon?

After local merchants complained, it became an issue ripe for Congress. Louisiana Senator David Vitter wrote the NFL Commissioner urging him to "drop this obnoxious and legally unsustainable position and instead agree that 'Who Dat' is in the public domain, giving no one exclusive trademark rights." Sen. Vitter makes valid trademark points. First, the NFL can't prove ownership via first use because "Who Dat" was "first heard in New Orleans minstrel shows well over 130 years ago" and "St. Augustine High School in New Orleans" used it prior to the NFL. Second, there's wide spread use by others and lack of enforcement because "Who Dat" "has become part of New Orleans and Louisiana popular culture." Finally, as for fair use, Sen. Vitter challenges the NFL to sue him because he's printing t-shirts with "WHO DAT say we Can't print Who Dat!" for widespread sale in commerce.

The NFL has only now -- apparently after Senators intervened -- realized the public relations blunder, chalking it all up to a "significant misunderstanding as to the scope of the [League's] trademark enforcement efforts."

UPDATE 1/27/2010: Upper Deck settles Yu Gi Oh! counterfeiting case. Details here.

Los Angeles, CA – Despite the Court’s finding that Upper Deck counterfeited Yu Gi Oh! cards (details here) and advising the parties to settle the damages phase through mediation, the jury trial to determine damages has commenced (Court’s calendar is here). If there ever was a case to settle early to avoid damage to a company’s reputation – which reputation and lifeline is founded on authenticating autographs and memorabilia, this would have been it.

The Cult-Stuff provides a chronology of events in the Konami v. Upper Deck Yu Gi Oh! counterfeiting battle here.

The case is Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. v. Vintage Sports Cards, Inc. et al., CV08-06630 VBF (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Los Angeles, CA – Grand Aerie of the Fraternal Order of Eagles (FOE) sued Eables Clubs International, Inc. and Eagles Clubs International Foundation, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition. FOE is a non-profit fraternal organization that has been engaged in social, civic and charitable activities since the 1890’s. FOE uses numerous “Eagles” trademarks, including logos, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Defendants are also a non-profit fraternal organization engaged in social, civic and charitable activities. Defendants use “Eagles” trademarks and logos incorporating an eagle design. FOE alleges that Defendants have registered the eaglesclubs.org domain name in bad faith in an effort to divert consumers from FOE’s online location. Defendants are accused of adopting the confusingly similar marks with prior knowledge of Plaintiff’s trademarks. The case is Grand Aerie of the Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Eagles Clubs International, Inc., et al., CV10-0357 RSWL (Cal. 2010).