Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

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).

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).

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).

Las Vegas, NV – Shaquille O’Neal has had numerous nicknames throughout his NBA basketball career. But his SHAQTUS nickname, which he assumed when he was traded to the Phoenix Suns in 2008, has become the prickly subject of a trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and right of publicity lawsuit. O’Neal has exclusively licensed his “Shaq” trademarks and his name, image, and likeness to his Mine O’Mine, Inc. corporation – the Plaintiff in the case.

Michael Calmese, Dan Mortensen, and their True Fan Logo, Inc. are the named defendants. On the day that Shaquille was traded to Phoenix, Mortensen registered the domain name and, shortly thereafter, the domain name. Defendants’ website features a cactus character that allegedly has O’Neal’s facial features and wears an orange number 32 basketball jersey – Shaq’s number with the Suns. Defendants sell clothing and other products bearing the SHAQTUS trademark and/or the character.

In 2008 and 2009, ESPN aired commercials featuring O’Neal and a cactus with O’Neal’s facial features. On December 4, 2009, Defendant Calmese allegedly sent a letter to ESPN claiming ownership of the SHAQTUS trademark and proposing a joint-development business arrangement to resolve the dispute. On December 29, 2009, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants demanding the transfer of the domain names. On January 4, 2010, Defendant Calmese responded and allegedly claimed that O’Neal consented to his use of the SHAQTUS mark when O’Neal agreed to take a picture with Calmese and autograph a T-shirt.

The case is Mine O’Mine, Inc. v. Calmese, et al., CV10-00043 KJD (D.Nev. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – UGG® boot manufacturer, Deckers Outdoor, filed a patent infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Claire’s Stores and CBI Distributing. UGG® boots have set a fashion trend with young ladies wearing the lamb-skinned boots – to keep their feet and calves warm – with shorts, thereby allowing their knees and thighs to freeze. That’s not in the complaint, it’s just a personal observation. Now back to the regularly scheduled complaint: the UGG® line of boots includes the Classic Cardy™, which was introduced in 2007 and has a crochet upper with buttons on the lateral side. The Classic Cardy™ boot is the subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D582,650 (“the ‘650 Patent”).

Deckers alleges that Defendants sell allegedly infringing boots under the “Claire’s Botts” mark at significantly lower price points, thereby diminishing the market place for the genuine Cardy Boots™. Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim derives from the alleged sales of infringing boots creating a false association or affiliation with Deckers’ UGG® line of boots.

It’s unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is asserting a trade dress infringement claim, but at least they obtained a design patent for the boot – which is not a work protectable by copyright. By doing so, they avoid some costs and expenses in having to conduct surveys to establish trade dress rights and, further, a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The following Federal Circuit opinion provides a great comparison of the level of proof needed for each:

[T]he difference in weight given to empirical evidence is fully understandable in light of the stark differences between the elements required to show design patent infringement and trademark and trade dress infringement. ... [P]urchasers' likelihood of confusion as to the source of a good is a necessary factor for determining trademark and trade dress infringement. ... To show infringement, the holder of a trademark or trade dress therefore must have progressed to the manufacture and distribution of a 'purchasable' product. As a result, consumer behavior in the marketplace is a highly relevant factor in determining trademark and trade dress infringement. Since surveys and other empirical studies are ordinarily probative evidence of consumer behavior in the marketplace, such evidence has significance in determining trademark and trade dress infringement. In contrast, ... a different quantum of proof applies to design patent infringement, which does not concern itself with the broad issue of consumer behavior in the marketplace. ... The single element here required to show design patent infringement involves a much narrower field of inquiry. In short, a design patentee may prove infringement simply by showing that an ordinary observer would be deceived by reason of an accused device's ornamental design. ... Therefore, in showing design patent infringement there is ordinarily no compelling need for empirical evidence. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corporation of America, 975 F.2d 815, 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

The case is Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Claire’s Stores, Inc., et al., CV09-09498 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2009).

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

Los Angeles, CA – Yu Gi Oh! owner Konami sued Upper Deck, its former distributor, for selling counterfeit trading cards. (Details here) After hearing both parties’ motions for summary judgment, the Court found that Konami had “presented evidence to establish every element of liability [for] counterfeit activity and violation of federal unfair competition law, pursuant to the Lanham Act, on the part of the [Upper Deck] Defendants.” (Order available here) The Court also found that Upper Deck was liable for common law trademark infringement and California unfair competition under Business & Professions Code § 17200. On the copyright infringement claim, the Court partially found that Upper Deck infringed the “Reverse Art” copyright, which refers to the text that appears on the back of the trading cards. The statement of undisputed facts is available here.

In another order, available here, the Court ruled in Konami’s favor because the “reproduction and/or manufacture of unauthentic cards does not fall within the ‘Approval’ clause of the 2006 Letter of Intent.” Conversely, the Court denied Upper Deck’s motion to limit its liability. In yet more bad news for Upper Deck, in another order that’s available here, the Court found for Konami on Upper Deck’s counterclaims for breach of contract and slander per se.

The case is scheduled for trial on January 26, 2010. The case is Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. v. Vintage Sports Cards, Inc. et al., CV08-06630 VBF (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Los Angeles, CA – Larry Flynt sued his former employees and nephews, Jimmy Flynt, Jr. and Dustin Flynt, for trademark infringement for using the family name in their upstart pornography company. Details blogged here. Larry Flynt also made a claim for violation of his rights of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344. On January 9, 2009, the Court preliminarily enjoined the nephews from using the “FLYNT” mark alone with the distribution of adult material, but allowed the nephews to use their first names in association with their family name on the same products. Details blogged here.

After a three day jury trial, Larry Flynt may have won the battle, but lost the war. LA Time article, here. The jury agreed that the use of the last name FLYNT alone was likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the adult related material and a permanent injunction will issue against the nephews. No monetary damages were sought for the trademark infringement claim. The jury, however, sided with the nephews on Larry’s rights of publicity claim, which contains a mandatory attorneys’ fees provision for the prevailing party. Thus, it looks like Larry will have to pay the nephews’ attorneys’ fees incurred in their defense of the §3344 claim, which they are likely to pursue since Larry allegedly fired their father in retaliation for the sons’ use of the family name. The case is Larry C. Flynt v. Flynt Media Corporation, et al., CV 09-00048 AHM, CV09-8796 JC (C.D. Cal. 2009).