Articles Posted in 17200 Unfair Competition

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.

The Heroes Project is a charitable organization helping veterans with mental, physical, and emotional obstacles since 2009.  The Heroes Project is suing Operation Hero Project for federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), federal unfair competition/false designation (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition.  Because charitable organizations are geared to a certain cause, the names or trademarks will sound similar and it is important to distinguish and protect the marks to avoid confusion, especially among donors.

The Heroes Project provides veterans expedition opportunities, community support, and a voice to the world.  The Heroes Project doeslogo this through cycling events and mountain climbing expeditions to places such as, Mount Kilimanjaro, Mount Elbrus, Mount Aconcagua and more.  The Heroes Project’s efforts are featured on many news stations and are also supported by many well-known celebrities and musicians, increasing its popularity.  The Heroes Project has used its mark for charitable fundraising since at least May 2010, including through its website, www.heroesproject.org.  The Heroes Project filed a federal trademark application in 2013, which registered in 2017.

Defendant Operation Hero Project offers similar charitable activities and fundraisers aimed towards veterans.  Operation Hero Project operates a website, operationheroproject.org, as well as a Facebook page under the same trademark.  Operation Hero Project’s activities include climbing excursions, bike rides, golf tournaments and other fundraising events.  Before the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges it sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant asserting its trademark rights, but Defendant refused to cease use of their mark in April 2018.

An Instagram media influencer, Nita Batra, along with a class of other Instagram influencers are suing PopSugar for what could be millions of dollars.  Batra runs an Instagram account with over 214,000 followers and a connected lifestyle and fashion blog.  As with many other Instagram influencers, Batra generates revenue through a contract with LIKEtoKnow.it, an app and website that identifies and sells clothes based on screenshots.  The Influencers’ agreement with LIKEtoKNOW.it allows each influencer to monetize the pictures and information they post to their social media sites.  The photographs that they post are linked to LIKEtoKnow.it’s app and website, allowing users to find and buy outfits the influencers wear in their Instagram posts.  Each influencer receives a percentage of the sale price when users buy products through their links.  The profits earned by many influencers with hundreds of thousands of followers can be substantial.  Copyright-Lawsuit-Instagram-Photo-300x300

Batra claims that PopSugar illegally took copyrighted pictures of many Instagram influencers, removing the referral links from which they profited, and posting the pictures on PopSugar’s website with new links.  These new links deprived the media influencers of their profits by directing users to ShopStyle, a website then owned by PopSugar.

Batra is suing for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 1202) and the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), copyright infringement, violations of the unfair competition law, infringement of the right of publicity, and intentional interference with contract.  This feature allegedly cut into the profits of the media influencers and improperly used their names and likenesses without their permission.  Instead of Batra and other class members receiving their commissions, PopSugar’s company at the time, ShopStyle, would receive the total profit from purchases made.

trademark-attorney-lawsuit-mexican-food-poquito-mas-taco-bell.jpgPoquito Mas Mexican restaurant is going mano-a-mano against Taco Bell over the latter’s use of the “Live Mas” trademark and service marks on its restaurants, food, and beverages. Founded in 1984, Poquito Mas has more than ten restaurants in California and differentiates itself by selling high quality food, always using the freshest ingredients and freshly made salsas. It also has several USPTO registered for its family of MAS trademarks including Poquito Mas, The Mas, and Mucho Mas, among others. Because most of its trademarks have been registered for over five years, the trademarks have become incontestable per 15 U.S.C. § 1065.

Plaintiff alleges that in January of 2012, Taco Bell contacted Poquito Mas in an attempt to license the “Mas” trademark to use in its “Live A Little Mas” advertising campaign. After some discussion, however, Poquito Mas declined to license the trademark because it believed Taco Bell’s slogan would diminish the Poquito Mas brand and confuse customers. Shortly thereafter, Taco Bell is accused of launching the “Live Mas” campaign despite its knowledge of the extraordinary fame and strength of the Mas trademarks: “Taco Bell is still actively using, promoting, and otherwise marketing the ‘Live Mas” trademarks with the knowledge and intent that this may cause consumer confusion between Taco Bell and Poquito Mas.” In addition to the trademark infringement claim, Poquito Mas asserts causes of action for false designation of origin and unfair competition under both federal and California law.

Poquito Mas seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Taco Bell’s use of the Live Mas marks in its advertising. Further, because Taco Bell’s knowingly infringed the trademarks, Poquito Mas asks the court to triple the damages under the Lanham Act and award punitive damages under state law.

copyright-attorney-trademark-infringement-lawsuit-hello-kitty-sanrio.jpgThe Hello Kitty character has been around for more than fifty years and numerous other related characters and designs have been copyrighted by Sanrio. In fact, Sanrio’s website has a page listing all of its copyrights. Sanrio aggressively protects both its copyrights and trademarks related to the Hello Kitty characters, even suing a children’s beauty pageant organizer for copyright infringement for using the Hello Kitty doll on its tiaras and trophies. Maybe that’s a good thing if you’ve seen how much these beauty pageants charge parents for the illusion of their kid’s success and to prevent exploitation. But more importantly, to prevent the next Honey Booboo from being thrust upon society. To protect myself from such a lawsuit, the image to the right displays some of the characters at issue in this lawsuit and was taken from Sanrio’s website.

Defendants Blink & Blink, Inc. and its officers are accused of selling jewelry and other products that incorporate a cast of Hello Kitty characters: “This case concerns the concerted, systematic and wholesale theft of various world-famous intellectual properties owned by Plaintiff. Defendants are engaged in the manufacture, importation, distribution, promotion, sale and/or offer for sale of bracelets, rings, earrings, necklaces, and other personal accessories, which incorporate unauthorized likenesses of animated or live action characters owned by Plaintiff, including, but not necessarily limited to, Hello Kitty (collectively “Infringing Product”).” The suit seeks unspecified damages, but requests that actual damages be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

The case is Sanrio, Inc. v. Blink & Blink, Inc., et al., CV13-08948 PJW (C.D. Cal. 2013).

Trademark-litigation-attorney-surname-golf-cleveland-callaway.jpgIn another example of the problems caused by using your own name as a trademark (e.g., Van Halen trademark lawsuit and Joseph Aboud trademark injunction), Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. and Dunlop Sports Co. Ltd. filed a trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution case against Callaway Golf Company. In 1990, Mr. Roger Cleveland, the individual, sold all shares and ownership interest in his eponymous company but remained an employee until 1996, when he joined Callaway. Everything proceeded like a long, straight drive on the fairway until July 2013 when Callaway started using Mr. Cleveland’s name to promote its golf clubs. The picture to the right, taken from Callaway’s website, shows the placement of Mr. Cleveland’s name on the club-head. Even though the clubs may indeed be designed by Mr. Cleveland, the use of the “Roger Cleveland” name may create a false association with or an endorsement by Roger Cleveland Golf Company.

Click here for a copy of the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of several federally registered trademarks for Cleveland, Trademark Registration Nos. 2,070,054 and 2,070,051, and Cleveland Golf, Trademark Registration No. 3,286,218. Plaintiffs allege:

fashion-apparel-trademark-attorney-infringement-design-hermes-homies.jpgFashion designer brotherly love – or hate – is demonstrated through a trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, intentional interference with contractual relations, defamation, libel, and slander lawsuit between brothers Brian Lictenberg and Christopher Lichtenberg and their respective companies. Brian alleges to be a successful designer and his designer parodies, substituting “Homiés” for “Hermés” and “Bucci” for “Gucci,” have become his claim to fame. Besides being possibly offensive to residents of South Central, depicting a man standing next to a broken down pick-up truck, it’s surprising that he hasn’t been sued for at least trademark dilution by these famous brands. Back to the regularly scheduled programming, this is not the first intra-family trademark infringement and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit.

This lawsuit, however, appears to be less about trademark infringement – which claim appears to weak – and more about vitriol. Brian claims that Christopher “continues to struggle with alcoholism, depression and various other psychological disorders, that have contributed to Christopher’s actions which have given rise to the causes of action set forth in this Complaint.” What Brian doesn’t realize is that slapping a word and design on the front of a t-shirt does not establish trademark rights. Indeed, this is such a major misconception among clothing designers that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has published an advice page on how to avoid merely ornamental refusals: “For example, a slogan prominently displayed on the front of a t-shirt may be considered merely ornamental use and not trademark use. That is, most purchasers of the t-shirts would not automatically think the slogan identified the source of the goods but would view the slogan only as a decoration on the goods.” In other words, if you want the slogan to function as a trademark, put it on the neck label or a hang tag. Thus, judging from the pictures herein, Brian’s trademark – as applied to the neck label – is BLTEE and not “BALLIN PARIS” which appears to be merely decorative. The Homies artwork, on the other hand, may be copyrightable but that’s an issue for another lawsuit, amended complaint, or counterclaim. But if Brian insists that his “Homies” parody is indeed his trademark, he may be opening himself up to a third-party trademark infringement lawsuit by the owner of the USPTO registered Homies apparel trademark.

Brian claims that after an email exchange with Kanye West where the word “Ballin” was used, Brian came up with the idea to create the “Ballin Paris” artwork as a purported parody of the “Balmain” trademark, using a similar font. Brian allegedly disclosed this information to Christopher and because he had “felt sorry for his younger brother’s failing [Alex & Chloe] business,” Christopher had been allowed to sell Brian’s merchandise on consignment as a favor. Christopher is accused of breaching the agreement to pay Brian for the merchandise sold on the Alex & Chloe website. And it’s alleged that Christopher “was a failed fashion and jewelry designer overshadowed by the financial and creative success of Brian” and, as a result, Chris’ “desperation for money caused him to set out to steal the “Ballin” parody design from Brian” and to create various “knock-off merchandise and apparel that look and feel identical to that of Brian’s products and designs.”

trademark-dismiss-confusion-spearmint-rhino-chiappa-firearms-gun.jpgIn an opinion that shocked no one except Spearmint Rhino, the Court dismissed WITH PREJUDICE – a rarity at such an early stage in litigation – the strip club operator’s trademark infringement case against Chiappa Firearms. Spearmint sued Chiappa for using a rhino outline as a trademark on its guns alleging that its use is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive because, among other reasons, consumers are likely to believe that there is an affiliation, connection, or association between” Spearmint and Chiappa. As predicted, the Court disagreed with Spearmint because consumers are unlikely to confuse its G-strings with guns.

Chiappa filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, wherein the court is requested to decide whether, assuming all the allegations in the complaint are true, the plaintiff has still failed to present a case entitling it to damages. The Court, however, must consider whether the claim is plausible on its face based on alleged facts. Thus, a complaint which alleges only labels and conclusions to meet the elements of the cause of action will not survive dismissal. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

To prevail on its trademark infringement claim, Spearmint had to show that it had a protectable trademark and that a “reasonably prudent consumer” is likely to be confused as to the origin of a good or service. DreamWerks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1992). To evaluate likelihood of confusion, Courts analyze the following non-exhaustive factors including: (1) strength of the mark; (2) relatedness to the goods; (3) similarity of sight, sound, and meaning; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels; (6) type of goods and purchaser care; (7) intent; and (8) likelihood of expansion. AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 559 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

Before last week’s release of Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1, a trademark and copyright infringement lawsuit saga dawned on clothing manufacturer B.B. Dakota over the pictured Bella Jacket. Summit Entertainment, the producer of the Twilight franchise that has raked in more than $1 billion in gross revenues, owns several USPTO trademark registrations for the “TWILIGHT” and “BELLA” trademarks, including for use on clothing and jewelry. Summit of course also owns all copyrights in the movies in addition to marketing and publicity materials and the “Bella Trading Card Image.” Summit’s licensing of the intellectual property rights has grossed an additional $63 million.

twilight-bella-jacket-trademark-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-attorney.jpg

Defendant BB is a clothing manufacturer that sold the pictured women’s cargo jacket in 2006 under the “Leigh” mark, which was discontinued in 2008. When the Leigh jacket was worn by Bella in the 2009 Twilight movie, BB was credited as the manufacturer in an Entertainment Weekly article accompanying a photograph. BB’s outside public relations contractor then contacted Summit’s manager of national publicity requesting permission to re-publish the EW image on its website, which she included in an email link to EW’s website. Summit’s representative responded with a simple “OK.” A few days later, BB requested permission to allow for a retail store to use the image, to which Summit responded with one word: “sure”.

Without seeking further permission, however, BB created “hangtags” for the jackets that included not the Entertainment Weekly picture, but an image of Bella wearing the jacket that Summit had used to promote posters, clothing, and other merchandise. Apparently, BB’s own PR rep warned BB to obtain permission to use the new image, but BB failed to heed the warning and argued that by including “As seen in the Twilight movie” language on the tag would constitute fair use. Thus, BB’s sales representative emailed the image to two hundred of her sales accounts representing that BB had permission to use the image on the hangtag and to publicize the product. The retailers in turn sent out email blasts using the Bella image with the belief that BB had properly licensed it. Summit sent cease and desist letters to BB’s retailers, after which BB instructed them to cut the hang tags from existing inventory and provided a substitute picture of a girl resembling the Bella character. To make matters worse, BB continued to refer to the jacket as the “Twilight jacket.”

Metropark, one of BB’s retailers, filed bankruptcy and ModCloth settled the matter. BB countersued Summit for trade dress infringement and unfair competition. Summit filed for summary judgment of liability on its trademark and copyright infringement, and trademark dilution claims and on BB’s counterclaims.
Continue reading

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.

fashion-trade-dress-design-patent-jeffrey-campbell-forever-21.jpg

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).