Articles Posted in Trade Dress

House of Lashes is a Southern California beauty company that sells eyelashes, beauty products, and accessories, and is well known in the beauty and eyelash industry.  House of Lashes owns the federally registered ICONIC trademark (Reg. No. 4.839,324) for false eyelashes, adhesives for affixing eyelashes, and artificial eyelashes.  Additionally, House of Lashes has a federal copyright registration for a photograph of its “Iconic” lashes (Copyright Reg. No. VA 1-996-524).  House of Lashes’ ICONIC brand of lashes is one of its most popular products and designs on the market and is sold online as well as in many stores nationwide.  Additionally, House of Lashes alleges that its product’s packaging is inherently distinctive because it is unique in the eyelash industry, and combines elements making it recognizable to consumers without accompanying words.Final-image-273x300

Kiss Nail Products is a competitor in the beauty industry that began selling “Iconic” brand eyelashes on websites and in stores.  On April 24, 2018, House of Lashes sent Kiss Nail Products a cease and desist letter, and the latter responded that it would not be complying with the cease and desist letter and would continue to make and sell “Iconic” branded eyelashes.  Thus, House of Lashes is suing Kiss Nail Products for (1) infringement of registered trademarks (15 U.S.C. § 1114), (2) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1114), (3) false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), (4) trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), (5) copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501), (6) registered trademark infringement (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14335), (7) unfair competition and false designation of origin (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. and § 17500), and (8) declaratory judgment.

House of Lashes alleges money and time investment in building a loyal fan base and protecting its ICONIC trademark, including a strong social media presence with millions of followers, videos with 18 million views, and estimates over a billion impressions related to their ICONIC brand eyelashes.  House of Lashes argues that the defendant’s purpose in using the Iconic trademark and packaging trade dress is to cause confusion or to deceive customers.  Defendant is also accused of intentionally copying the design, layout, visual presentation, and arrangement in photographs displaying the eyelashes, thereby infringing House of Lashes’ copyrighted photographs.

Morphe, a well-known makeup company, is suing Becca in response to threats Morphe’s new eyeshadow palette’s packaging constitutes trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, and palming off under the Lanham Act.  15 U.S.C. § 1051.  Becca also alleges that Morphe has tortiously interfered with Becca’s contract with Jaclyn Hill, a makeup artist that Morphe now works with.  The palette in question is also a project with Jaclyn Hill, in which she teamed up with Morphe to create a line of eyeshadow palettes.  The first palette was very popular and called “the Jaclyn Hill Palette.”  Morphe and Jaclyn Hill created a second set of palettes called the “Vault” collection.  The announcement generated lots of publicity for Morphe and on Jaclyn Hill’s Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter pages.

Complaint-Morphe-DJ-action-TM-2-300x231

Pictures taken from complaint.

Complaint-Morphe-DJ-action-TM-300x210

Morphe’s Vault collection’s packaging design features a white box with a silver background behind the logo and a confetti look with colors and shapes expanding from the center.  The logo features Morphe’s name and Hill’s signature.  More than six weeks after the announcement, Becca sent Morphe a cease and desist letter claiming common law trademark rights to the design.  Becca mentioned their previous contract with Jaclyn Hill and stated that their palette with Hill had extensive use giving them common law trademark rights.  However, Becca provided no federal registration for the packaging and allegedly had not sold, marketed or used the packaging in the U.S. for the last two years.  Becca allegedly is also unable to resume use of this mark due to contractual obligations.

trade-dress-handbag-attorney-trademark-purse-hermes-sued-lawsuit.jpgHermès is a French luxury goods manufacturer whose handbags and purses are highly coveted. Its “Birkin” handbag has become immediately recognizable to millions of consumers (I know because seven out of seven ladies in our office immediately identified the pictured bag as a Birkin) and therefore distinctive, thereby its shape is a registered trademark with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. While Birkin Bags have been manufactured using various leather types and textures, its trade dress is defined by “(a) a distinctive three lobed flap design with keyhole shaped notches to fit around the base of the handle, (b) a dimpled triangular profile, (c) a closure which consists of two thin, horizontal straps designed to fit over the flap, with metal plates at their end that fit over a circular turn lock, (d) a padlock which fits through the center eye of the turn lock and (e), typically, a key fob affixed to a leather strap, one end of which is affixed to the bag by wrapping around the base of one end of the handle.” Because each handbag is handcrafted by artisans using the finest leather, prices start at about $6,000 and reach the price of a finely engineered sports car.

Despite the high price of the Birkin Bag, it is generally recognized by consumers due to considerable coverage by the press and its inclusion in story lines of several television shows, including HBO’s Sex and the City. Because of the enormous sales, extensive advertising and promotion, and media coverage, the Birkin Bag’s shape has acquired secondary meaning and developed into a famous trademark. Even the strap/turn and lock/padlock closure is independently famous and the subject of another U.S. trademark registration.

Defendants Emperia, Inc., Anne-Sophie, Inc. and Top’s Handbag, Inc. are accused of being related sister companies in the business of importing and distributing women’s handbags. Defendants are accused of selling infringing knockoff bags to Charming Charlie and JustFab. Despite allegedly receiving cease and desist letters, Defendants continued to expand and sell additional knockoff designs. The suit seeks unspecified damages, but requests that actual damages be trebled, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, because defendants intentionally and willfully continued their infringement despite receiving notice of their infringing activity.

copyright-toy-attorney-trade-dress-fairy-spin-master.jpgFlying toy manufacturer, Spin Master, is suing its former technology company and its new business affiliates for allegedly infringing Spin Master’s Flutterbye flying toy fairy’s copyrights and trade dress by selling the competing Starfly fairy. Indeed, the two companies are no strangers to litigation and are currently engaged in a patent infringement lawsuit in Illinois involving remote controlled airplanes and helicopters. Here, Spin Master claims to have introduced the Flutterbye toy in 2013, which fairy doll incorporates a new technology that allows a customer to control the flying fairy using only one’s palm. Spin Master asserts that the Flutterbye received numerous top toy awards and has been a commercial success. The Flutterbye fairy figurine has been copyrighted and several other copyright applications are pending for the flower designs, stardust, and packaging.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants approached Plaintiff about a possible collaboration to distribute the toy outside of the United States, which Plaintiff declined. Plaintiff contends that “after seeing the success of Spin Master’s Flutterbye fairy toy, and rather than independently creating a distinct product, Defendants Brix, CYI and Rehco together engaged in a plan to create a look-alike flying fairy product in an attempt to unfairly capitalize on Spin Master’s success.” Aside from copying original elements of the toy itself, Plaintiff claims that Defendants use confusingly similar packaging and marketing channels, including similar YouTube commercials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC3Som20tBE

trade-dress-attorney-purse-bag-design-patent-hammitt.jpgSeveral purse trade dress infringement lawsuits have been filed in Los Angeles over the last couple of years (see Linea Pelle lawsuit, Marc Jacobs lawsuit, and Givenchy lawsuit) as designers try to protect their handbag designs from being copied. With a little bit of careful planning and foresight, designers can avoid having to provide constrained definitions for the non-functional and protectable features of their designs, in addition to proving consumer’s recognition of the trade dress as an indicator of source, i.e., capable of distinguishing one company’s product from another’s. Although the purse’s structural design is not entitled to copyright protection, designers may obtain design patents to protect the aesthetic design features of their purses.

Hammitt appears to have no design patent protection and is attempting to assert an ambiguous trade dress infringement and unfair competition claim against TJ Maxx, designer Patricia Nash and her company Me & You Accessories, Inc. Judging from the absence of some crucial information from the complaint, including a picture of the accused infringing purse, the length of time the purported trade dress has been used, sales volume, etc., the complaint appears ripe for a motion to dismiss. Indeed, the definition of the trade dress itself appears to be overbroad and ambiguous:

HAMMIT® products are easily identified by its unique silhouettes and use of hardware, one of the most well recognized of which features Hammitt’s signature rivets, which appear in linear patterns along the sides, trimmings, and/or handles of the product (hereinafter “Signature Rivet Trade Dress”). The rivets of Hammitt’s Signature Rivet Trade Dress are the same size and each rivet is separated with the same amount of space on all goods with which said trade dress is utilized.

attorney-trademark-trade-dress-design-patent-paris-hilton.jpgParis Hilton has teamed up with Parlux Fragrances to release her own perfume line and to also sue Perfection Perfume for trademark, trade dress, and patent infringement, in addition to unfair competition. Paris claims to be a worldwide owner of several trademarks used in connection with clothing, footwear, cosmetics, fragrances and watches. Speaking about watches, Paris was recently sued for patent infringement for allegedly copying watch designer de Grisogono’s patented Novantatre watch design. Back to Paris’ current case, she also claims to be an international celebrity, actress, fashion designer, musician and socialite, which has resulted in sales of millions of bottles of her fragrances. She also owns an incontestable US Patent & Trademark Office trademark registration for her Paris Hilton trademark for fragrances.

Paris contends that she has established a distinctive trade dress in the fragrances’ bottle, namely: “(i) cylindrical-shaped bottles; (ii) clear pink bottles for the women’s fragrance and clear blue for the men’s fragrance; (iii) a vertical black wave design overlaid on the bottle; and (iv) the brand name Paris Hilton written in black, lower case, and cursive font against a silver background.” She also contends to own trade dress rights in beauty products, consisting of (i) black tubes and (ii) the brand name Paris Hilton written in cursive lettering and displayed vertically in metallic pink (for women) or metallic blue (for men).” But we’re not done yet. The complaint also alleges trade dress rights for individual fragrances which includes: “(i) metallic pink (for women) or metallic blue (for men) boxes; (ii) a vertical black wave design overlaid on the box; (iii); and the brand name Paris Hilton written in metallic silver, lower case, and cursive font running vertically up the right side of the box.” Almost finished. And finally, she also claims trade dress rights in the packaging for boxed gift sets comprising: “(i) metallic pink (for women) or metallic blue (for men) boxes; (ii) a vertical black wave design overlaid on the box; (iii); and the brand name Paris Hilton written in silver, lower case, and cursive font running vertically up the right side of the box.”

Paris’ manufacturer, Parlux, is the owner of U.S. Patent No. D518,382, covering the ornamental features of the fragrance bottle, i.e. the transparent cylindrical bottle and cap with a helical pattern continuing around the surface of the bottle. The complaint alleges that defendant’s Los Angeles retail location sold a perfume that infringed the trademarks, trade dress, and design patent. The suit seeks unspecified damages.

Jewelry-copyright-attorney-trade-dress-sued-court-los-angeles-alor.jpgLos Angeles, CA – A’lor International sued numerous jewelry designers, producers and retailers for copyright and trade dress infringement over sales various nautical twisted cable motif jewelry. A’lor filed a summary adjudication motion asking the Court to deem Defendants liable for copyright and trade dress infringement. Defendant Lau filed a motion for partial summary judgment that it did not infringe A’lor’s copyrights and Defendant Miami Lakes filed a motion regarding the trade dress infringement claims, which motions were joined by several defendants.

To succeed on its copyright infringement claims, Plaintiff must show that (1) Plaintiff owns valid copyrights in the Subject Designs; and (2) Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s copyright. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co., 345 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court held that A’lor’s copyright registration certificates constituted prima facie evidence of a valid copyright, which presumption of validity defendants were unable to rebut. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). To rebut the presumption, Defendants argued that the copyrights were invalid because they lack originality. Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court, however, found that Defendants submitted evidence of pre-existing nautical twisted cable motif jewelry sold by third parties and to provide copyright protection to Plaintiff’s would improperly give Plaintiff a monopoly on nautical rope band jewelry. Nevertheless, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to a “thin” copyright in the style of the clasp or other ornaments and panther heads. But once the court subtracted the unoriginal elements and considered only Plaintiff’s original contributions, no copyright infringement could be found because virtually identical copying didn’t exist, the proper infringement test for a “thin” copyright.

Regarding its trade dress infringement claim, A’lor had to show that (1) the trade dress is nonfunctional; (2) the trade dress has acquired secondary meaning, and (3) there is a substantial likelihood of confusion between the Accused Designs and the Subject Designs. See Art Attacks v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 2009). “Trade dress” refers to the “total image of a product” and may include features such as size, shape, color, color combinations, texture or graphics. International Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993). Because the scope of trade dress protection may be broad, courts exercise particular caution when extending protection to product designs, as granting trade protection to an ordinary product design would create a monopoly in the goods themselves. Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373, 380 (2d Cir. 1997).

trademark-shoe-christian-louboutin-v-yves-saint-laurent.jpgThe popular Christian Louboutin (CL) shoes’ red sole trademark is readily recognized by the consuming public. But when CL sued Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) for making red soled shoes, the district court disagreed. Finding CL’s red sole trademark unenforceable, the court denied CL’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent YSL’s sales of shoes with lacquered red soles.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the district court incorrectly held that a single color can never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry. The Court, however, proceeded to then modify CL’s trademark registration for any shoe with a red sole to only apply with red, lacquered outsole with a contrasting upper of the shoe. In other words, the trademark excludes any red shoe with a red sole.

YSL claimed this was not the first time it had designed monochrome footwear with red soles, which it created in the 1970’s prior to CL’s 1992 adoption of the red sole trademark. Thus, YSL filed counterclaims seeking cancellation of CL’s trademark registration because it was ornamental and functional and sought monetary damages for CL’s interference with YSL’s business relations and for unfair competition because many retailers returned YSL’s shoes after receiving CL’s cease and desist letters.

UPDATE 4-24-2013: District Court finds non-infringement of trade dress and copyrights on summary judgment.

trade-dress-jewelry-copyright-cable-charriol-yurman-trademark.jpgA’lor International Ltd., dba Charriol USA, is suing sixteen defendants for manufacturing and selling numerous jewelry designs incorporating a nautical cable motif that allegedly infringe Charriol’s copyrights and trade dress. Charriol claims that it has been designing unique jewelry designs for decades, which have either been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or are pending registration. To see pictures of Charriol’s entire list of asserted designs and allegedly infringing products, click here. Through many years of sales, advertising, and media coverage, Charriol alleges that the cable motif has become its trade dress, meaning that the jewelry’s visual appearance functions as a trademark and consumers associate the appearance with the source of the jewelry. Charriol also asserts a breach of implied contract against four defendants that received samples of the jewelry and agreed to only use the designs if they compensated Charriol.

Charriol’s cable jewelry designs are reminiscent of David Yurman’s twisted cable design. Indeed, Yurman has filed numerous lawsuits for infringement of his copyrights and trade dress in the twisted cable jewelry design. In Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., the defendant appealed the jury’s verdict awarding Yurman damages for PAJ’s infringement of Yurman’s copyrights and trade dress. The Second Circuit affirmed the finding of copyright infringement despite the use of cable designs by others in the jewelry industry because “the originality in Yurman’s four designs inheres in the ways Yurman has recast and arranged those constituent [preexisting] elements. We have carefully reviewed the cable jewelry produced by third parties that PAJ submitted to the jury, and cannot conclude that any of Yurman’s four combinations are nonoriginal as a matter of law.” The appellate court, however, reversed Yurman’s trade dress victory because his definition of the trade dress as “the artistic combination of cable [jewelry] with other elements” was overbroad or generic:

design-patent-shoes-trade-dress-steven-madden-skechers.jpgSkechers 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.”