Pattishall IP Blog

March 25, 2015

Supreme Court holds that issues decided by the TTAB may be preclusive in Federal Court

Filed under: Litigation, TTAB — Tags: , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 9:53 am

Widmaier_Uli_1 F LRBy: Uli Widmaier

A.  The Supreme Court’s Holding

On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court held for the first time that “a court should give preclusive effect to TTAB decisions if the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met.” B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352, slip op. at 2.

In other words, “[s]o long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.” Id., slip op. at 22. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a determination whether the conditions for preclusion are met. Id.

B.  The Reach of the Supreme Court’s Opinion

In B&B, the issue to which preclusion may apply was likelihood of confusion. But the principle announced by the Supreme Court is not limited to likelihood of confusion. Given the wording and rationale of the Supreme Court’s opinion, practitioners and trademark owners should expect any TTAB decision to have a preclusive effect if it meets the conditions for preclusion articulated by the Supreme Court. These conditions are discussed below.

That would include TTAB decisions on issues such as secondary meaning, inherent distinctiveness, genericness, abandonment, functionality, dilution, and others. Any TTAB decision on these and other issues will be preclusive if it meets the Supreme Court’s conditions. Therefore, the potential reach of the Supreme Court’s holding is broad and may have substantial implications for trademark owners.

C.  Facts

B&B owns the mark SEALTIGHT for metal fasteners in the aerospace industry; Hargis owns the mark SEALTITE for metal fasteners in the construction trade. Slip op. at 6. B&B opposed Hargis’s application to register SEALTITE and prevailed in the TTAB, which found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. Id. at 6-7.

B&B also sued Hargis in federal district court for trademark infringement. After the TTAB had found in B&B’s favor, B&B argued before the district court that the TTAB’s decision precluded Hargis from further contesting the issue of likelihood of confusion. The court rejected B&B’s argument, and the jury found in favor of Hargis on likelihood of confusion. B&B appealed to the Eighth Circuit, lost, and then prevailed before the Supreme Court.

D.  Issue Preclusion

The Supreme Court explained issue preclusion as follows: “[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.” Slip op. at 9, quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments, §27, p. 250 (1980). Importantly, “issue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts.” Slip op. at 9 (emphasis in original). Therefore, a decision by an administrative agency may also have issue preclusive effect. Id. (more…)

October 2, 2014

Not Quite “Happy Together” – Recording Industry Scores Significant Victory in First Major Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Performance Rights Decision

Filed under: Copyright, Internet, Litigation — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 9:40 am

by Jason Koransky, Associate

When Sirius XM broadcasts “Happy Together,” “It Ain’t Me Babe,” and other hit recordings from The Turtles through its satellite and Internet radio services, it infringes the copyrights to these recordings, according to a court in the Central District of California.

In an order issued September 22, 2014, in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Inc., 2:13-cv-05693 (C.D. California: Public performances of pre-1972 sound recordings protected by California copyright law)[1], the record industry scored a significant victory in the first major court ruling on the issue of state copyright protection for public performances of pre-1972 sound recordings. The court granted Flo & Eddie summary judgment on its claim that Sirius’ unlicensed public performances of its sound recordings violated California Civil Code § 980(a)(2), the section in California’s copyright statute that applies to pre-1972 sound recordings. Flo & Eddie is the corporation owned and operated by Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman, founding members and the lead singer and guitarist, respectively, of the 1960s pop group The Turtles. Because the case involves only California state law, however, the court’s ruling is limited in scope to public performances of these recordings in the state of California.

This case is one of a series of lawsuits that seek royalties for public performances by new media music services such as Sirius XM and Pandora of sound recordings created before February 15, 1972, based on the argument that state law protects these recordings from such unlicensed uses. While music compositions have long enjoyed copyright protection under U.S. copyright law, only in 1972 did Congress extend copyright protection to sound recordings. Individual states, however, had enacted their own copyright statutes, which co-existed with the federal Copyright Act until the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, which preempted these state laws. The 1976 federal law, however, expressly carved out a preemption exemption to sound recordings created before February 15, 1972. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(c) (“With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067.”)

In 1995, Congress expanded the rights attached to a sound recording when it passed the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, which added digital audio transmissions of sound recordings to the exclusive bundle of rights a copyright grants. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(6). SoundExchange has emerged as the performance rights organization that collects the compulsory license fees that non-interactive digital music services—including Sirius XM—pay to perform these recordings.

But Sirius did not pay, and SoundExchange did not attempt to collect, royalties for pre-1972 recordings, as these do not have federal copyright protection. The digital public performance rights that owners of these sound recordings possess have existed in a sort of legal limbo based on the interpretations of state copyright statutes. Flo & Eddie owns the rights to The Turtles’ recordings, and tested these legal waters by suing Sirius for violating California copyright law—and bringing claims for unfair competition, conversion, and misappropriation—for broadcasting its sound recordings.

The case boiled down to statutory construction. The applicable statute, California Civil Code § 980(a)(2), reads (with emphasis added):

The author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972, has an exclusive ownership therein until February 15, 2047, as against all persons except one who independently makes or duplicates another sound recording that does not directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in such prior recording, but consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate the sounds contained in the prior sound recording.

Flo & Eddie argued that “exclusive ownership” of sound recordings encompasses the right to control public performances of these recordings. Sirius argued that because the statute did not expressly specify the public performance right, it was not included in the “exclusive ownership” of a recording. Based on the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, and two court decisions which implied that the California statute granted the owner of a sound recording the exclusive right to control public performances of its recordings, the court agreed with Flo & Eddie’s interpretation. As such, because no dispute existed that Sirius had broadcast The Turtles’ recordings without a license, the court granted Flo & Eddie’s summary judgment motion that these public performances infringed their sound recording copyrights. The court also granted Flo & Eddie summary judgment on its unfair competition, conversion, and misappropriation claims.

This case has the potential to create significant revenue streams for major record labels and other owners of pre-1972 sound recordings. Conversely, it presents new licensing and business challenges to Internet, satellite, and other new media non-interactive music service providers. Of course, a treasure trove of artistically and commercially successful music was recorded before 1972—think Elvis, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington … the list could go on and on. A huge void would exist if Sirius simply stopped broadcasting these recordings. As such, the full implications of the decision in the Flo & Eddie case may take years to emerge, especially considering that the decision applies only in California. For example, a court interpreting another state’s law could issue an opposite decision. But in practicality, Sirius could most likely not block its broadcasts from California. So if this decision is affirmed on appeal, new licensing requirements will likely emerge for digital public performances of pre-1972 sound recordings.

*     *     *

Jason Koransky is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Jason’s practice focuses on trademark, trade dress, copyright and false advertising litigation, as well as domestic and international trademark prosecution and counseling. He is co-author of the book Band Law for Bands, published by the Chicago-based Lawyers for the Creative Arts.



For a printer-friendly version, click here.

June 26, 2014

Aereo’s Internet-Based Television Streaming Services May Be Wizardry, But the Supreme Court is in No Mood for Magic

Filed under: Copyright, Internet, Litigation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 12:17 pm

Ekhoff_Jessica_2 F LRby Jessica Ekhoff, Associate

Describing its Internet-based television streaming services, tech start-up Aereo proclaims, “It’s not magic. It’s wizardry.”[1] In yesterday’s 6-3 decision the Supreme Court disagreed, or at the very least, adopted a staunchly anti-wizardry stance.[2]

Justice Breyer, writing for the majority in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., characterized the issue before the Court as whether “Aereo, Inc., infringes this exclusive right [of public performance under §106(4) of the Copyright Act] by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over air.”[3] Despite Aereo’s self-description as a mere equipment supplier doing no “performing” of its own, the Court held in the affirmative.

The Court analyzed the issue in two parts: whether Aereo “performed” under the Copyright Act, and if so, whether the performance was “public.”

In concluding that Aereo did, in fact, perform under the Copyright Act, the majority of the Court turned to the 1976 amendments to the Act, which were adopted, in large part, to bring community antenna television, or CATV—the precursor to cable television—within the scope of the Act. CATV functioned by placing antennas on hills above cities, then using coaxial cables to carry the television signals received by the antennas into subscribers’ homes. CATV did not select which programs to carry, but rather served as a conduit for the transmission and amplification of television signals. Before the 1976 amendments, Supreme Court precedent considered CATV to be a passive equipment supplier that did not “perform” under the Act.[4] After the amendments, to “perform” an audiovisual work such as a television program meant “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.”[5] CATV thus “performed” the shows it transmitted because it both showed the television programs’ images to its subscribers, and made the accompanying sounds audible. Over a strong dissent authored by Justice Scalia[6], the majority found that, because its services were so similar to those once offered by CATV, Aereo also “performed” under the post-1976 definition of the term.[7]

Having determined that Aereo’s services constitute a performance under the Copyright Act, the Court next turned to the issue of whether those performances are public. Aereo argued its services do not constitute public performance because whenever a subscriber selects a program to watch, Aereo places a unique copy of the show in that subscriber’s folder on Aereo’s hard drive, which no one other than that subscriber can view. If another subscriber wants to watch the same show, she will receive her own copy of the program in her own folder from Aereo. The Court dismissed this argument, finding the “technological difference” inconsequential in light of Congress’s clear intent to bring anything analogous to CATV within the scope of the Copyright Act’s requirements. Under the post-1976 Act, an entity performs a copyrighted work publicly any time it “transmits” a performance. A performance is “transmitted” when it is communicated by any device or process beyond the place from which it is sent, whether the recipients receive the transmission at the same time and place, or at different times and places.[8] Aereo therefore publicly performs a copyrighted television program each time its system sends a copy of that program to a subscriber’s personal Aereo folder.

The majority characterized its holding as a “limited” one, and was careful to emphasize that its decision does not apply to other new technologies, such as cloud-based storage and remote storage DVRs. But with a slew of amici curiae predicting the decision could have a catastrophic impact on the tech industry, there are surely some who will take no comfort from the Court’s assurances. Aereo, unfortunately, may not have a spell to resurrect itself.

*     *     *

Jessica Ekhoff is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Jessica’s practice focuses on trademark, trade dress, copyright and false advertising litigation, as well as film clearance, media and entertainment, and brand management.



[3] American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461, slip op. at 1, 573 U.S. __ (2014).

[4] Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968); Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974).

[5] 17 U.S.C. § 101.

[6] Justice Scalia argues that Aereo does not “perform” because it is the subscriber, rather than Aereo, who selects the program she wishes to watch, which in turn activates the individual antennae Aereo has assigned to her for the purpose of viewing that program. This means it is the subscriber who is doing the performing, since she is the one rousing Aereo’s antennae from dormancy and calling up a specific program to watch. Justice Scalia went on to note that although he disagrees with the majority’s interpretation of “perform,” he agrees that Aereo’s activities ought not to be allowed, either because Aereo is secondarily liable for its subscribers’ infringement of the Networks’ performance rights, or because it is directly liable for violating the Networks’ reproduction rights. If future courts fail to find Aereo liable under either of those theories, Justice Scalia advocates relying on Congress to close the loophole. Slip Op. at 12.

[7] Slip Op. at 8.

[8] 17 U.S.C. § 101.

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

June 12, 2014

Supreme Court Permits Competitor False Advertising Suits to Proceed Under Lanham Act Despite FDA Regulation

Filed under: False Advertising, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 2:51 pm

PB LRby Phillip Barengolts, Partner

Today, the Supreme Court provided competitors with a powerful new tool to combat potentially false and misleading statements on food and beverage labels, or any other FDA regulated materials – a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The unanimous opinion[1] in POM Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Co., Slip Op. No. 12-761, 573 U.S. _ (2014)[2], specifically permits POM to proceed with its false advertising claim that Coca-Cola’s MINUTE MAID juice, which contains 99.4% apple and grape juice, .3% pomegranate juice, .2% blueberry juice, and .1% raspberry juice, but displays the words “pomegranate blueberry” in all capital letters (as shown below), misleads consumers, overruling the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the contrary.

POM v Coca Cola Picture

The key issue before the Court was whether The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which regulates labeling of food and beverages, among other things, precludes[3] a false advertising claim over an FDCA-compliant label. The FDCA prohibits false or misleading labeling. 21 U.S.C. § 343(a). The FDCA does not allow private parties to enforce its provisions through a lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. § 337. Here, Coca-Cola complied with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements for juice labeling. 21 CFR § 102.33(d).

Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit had ruled in Coca-Cola’s favor, essentially finding that since the FDA did not impose label requirements as stringent as those sought by POM through its lawsuit, then POM should not have a private right of action to impose such requirements under the Lanham Act. The Court, however, found that the “FDCA, by its terms, does not preclude Lanham Act suits.” Slip Op. at 9. Furthermore, the Court noted that when Congress enacted the preemption provisions of the FDCA, “if anything [Congress] indicated it did not intend the FDCA to preclude requirements arising from other sources” and that “pre-emption of some state requirements does not suggest an intent to preclude federal claims.” Slip Op. at 11, citing Setser v. U.S., 566 U.S. __, __ (2012) (slip op., at 6-7).

Ultimately, the Court chose to read the Lanham Act and FDCA as complements – one protecting against unfair competition, the other protecting public health and safety. Slip Op. at 11. Indeed, the Court noted that “[a]llowing Lanham Act suits takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation.” Id. at 12. This decision will have consequences for companies in regulated industries – especially those in the food and beverage fields – because, before placing products into the marketplace, they will now need to review labels and statements both to assure compliance with FDA regulations and in light of Lanham Act principles to avoid competitor suits.

*          *          *

Phillip Barengolts is a partner with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Mr. Barengolts’ practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling in domestic and international trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, trade secret, Internet, and copyright law. He teaches trademark and copyright litigation at John Marshall Law School, and co-authored Trademark and Copyright Litigation, published by Lexis Publishing.


[1] Justice Breyer did not participate in considering this case.

[2] Read the entire opinion here:

[3] This is not a preemption case – preemption addresses the situation when state and federal laws conflict. The Court made sure to point this out in its opinion. The FDCA does preempt certain state laws on misbranding. 21 U.S.C. §343-1(a).

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

April 29, 2014

Performance of Magic Trick Protected Under Copyright Law, Nevada District Court Holds

Filed under: Copyright, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 11:03 am

SIA-LRBy: Seth I. Appel, Associate

A renowned illusionist has achieved a very real victory in court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that Teller’s performance of his Shadows magic trick is protected under copyright law, even though the magic trick itself is not. Teller v. Dogge, 110 USPQ2d 1302 (D. Nev. 2014).[1]

Teller – a well-known magician, best known as half of Penn & Teller – has performed Shadows for over three decades. This illusion involves a spotlight pointed at a vase containing a rose, projecting a shadow onto a screen as shown below:

Magic Trick-Teller Blog Post

Teller, wielding a large knife, slowly cuts the leaves and petals of the rose’s shadow on the screen. Meanwhile, the corresponding leaves and petals of the real rose fall to the ground.

Teller brought a lawsuit against Gerard Dogge, a Dutch performer who uploaded to YouTube two videos of himself performing a similar illusion, entitled The Rose and Her Shadow.

Dogge’s caption for the videos stated: “I’ve seen the great Penn & Teller performing a similar trick and now I’m very happy to share my version in a different and more impossible way with you.” Dogge admitted that he posted the videos in an attempt to sell the illusion’s secret.

The court last month court granted Teller’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright infringement claim, holding that Teller’s performance of Shadows is subject to copyright protection. While magic tricks are not protected under copyright law, the court explained, the Copyright Act protects “dramatic works” and “pantomimes.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). “The mere fact that a dramatic work or pantomime includes a magic trick, or even that a particular illusion is its central feature does not render it devoid of copyright protection,” the court found.

The court rejected Dogge’s argument that Teller had waived his copyright because his partner, Penn Jillette, had issued a challenge of sorts, publicly stating that “no one will ever figure out” Shadows. This statement, the court observed, “merely provokes others to unearth the secret, not perform the work.” And for copyright purposes, the secret behind the trick is insignificant: “the performance it is used for is everything.”

Having determined that Teller’s illusion merited copyright protection, the court had no trouble finding infringement. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s two-part analysis – an “extrinsic test” and an “intrinsic test” – the court found that Teller’s Shadows and Dogge’s The Rose and Her Shadow were substantially similar.

The court noted that the two parties’ illusions were “nearly identical twins,” even though their secrets may have been different.

In discerning substantial similarity, the court compares only the observable elements of the works in question. Therefore, whether Dogge uses Teller’s method, a technique known only by various holy men of the Himalayas, or even real magic is irrelevant, as the performances appear identical to an ordinary observer.

Last week the court set trial for June 2, 2014, to determine whether Dogge committed willful infringement and to decide Teller’s unfair competition claim.

In its summary judgment order, the court noted that the magic community has traditionally blackballed performers who reveal other magicians’ secrets. This case confirms that wronged magicians also may have another avenue for relief, in federal court.

*     *     *

Seth I. Appel is an associate attorney at Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.  Mr. Appel’s practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling with respect to trademark, trade dress, copyright and Internet law.




For a printer-friendly version, click here.


February 7, 2014

Utilitarian Shape of Hookah Not Subject to Copyright Protection, Even if Distinctive, Ninth Circuit Holds

Filed under: Copyright, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 3:27 pm

SIA-LRBy: Seth I. Appel, Associate

Inhale Inc.’s efforts to protect the shape of its hookah under copyright law went up in smoke, as the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.  Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., 739 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2014).[1]

Inhale, a designer and manufacturer of smoking products, sold the hookah[2] shown below:


It obtained a U.S. copyright registration for this product.

Inhale sued Starbuzz for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Starbuzz sold a similar hookah.  Inhale’s claim was based entirely on the shape of Starbuzz’s hookah.  For purposes of the lawsuit, Inhale disclaimed copyright protection to the skull-and-crossbones graphic.

The district court granted Starbuzz’s motion for summary judgment in 2012, holding that Inhale did not own a valid copyright in the shape of its hookah, notwithstanding its registration.  Last month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Copyright Act generally protects “original works of authorship,” including sculptural works.  But it does not protect “useful articles.”  Under the Copyright Act, a “useful article” is “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.”  17 U.S.C. § 101.

Individual design elements of a useful article may be subject to copyright protection, to the extent that they “can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”  17 U.S.C. 101.  Such protectable elements may be either physically separable or conceptually separable.

Inhale argued that the shape of its hookah was conceptually separable from its utilitarian features, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed.  It explained:  “The shape of a container is not independent of the container’s utilitarian function—to hold the contents within its shape—because the shape accomplishes the function.”  739 F.3d at 449.

The court, citing Copyright Office practice, rejected Inhale’s contention that the distinctiveness of the hookah shape affected the separability analysis.  The court observed:

Although Inhale’s water container, like a piece of modern sculpture, has a distinctive shape, “the shape of the alleged ‘artistic features’ and of the useful article are one and the same.”

739 F.3d at 449 (quoting Compendium of Copyright Office Practices II, § 505.03).

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Starbuzz under 17 U.S.C. § 505, and further awarded Starbuzz its attorneys’ fees on appeal.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a blow to producers of creative works that have utilitarian functions, including other sculptural works such as bottles and vases.  In view of this decision, it may be harder for such entities to address copying by competitors – at least under copyright law.

*     *     *

Seth I. Appel is an associate attorney at Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.  Mr. Appel’s practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling with respect to trademark, trade dress, copyright and Internet law.


[2]A hookah is a device for smoking tobacco, in which the smoke passes through a water basin, which filters and cools the smoke before it is inhaled by the user.  See

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

June 5, 2013

Flea Market Operator Hit for Over $5 Million for Permitting Sale of Counterfeit Products

Filed under: Counterfeiting, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 5:41 pm

By Janet Marvel, Partner

The Sixth Circuit, in a case of first impression, held that a flea market operator can be contributorily liable for counterfeiting carried on by vendors renting stalls at his market.  The case illustrates that contributory infringement can be a valuable tool against counterfeiting when the primary infringers are small, numerous, anonymous or (individually) commercially insignificant.

In Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow, 2013 WL 2364091 (6th Cir. May 31, 2013), the appellate court affirmed a jury award of over $5 million dollars in damages, and a grant of $186,666.61 in attorneys’ fees against Goodfellow, the operator of a flea market at which counterfeit goods were sold.  The district court had granted summary judgment on liability, which Goodfellow failed to contest.  While Goodfellow technically had forfeited his ability to appeal the liability ruling, the court nonetheless used its discretion to render an opinion on liability.

Goodfellow received a letter from Coach in January, 2010, from the district attorney in March, and was served with the complaint in June.  Police raided the market in April, March and June.  In response, Goodfellow distributed pamphlets telling vendors not to counterfeit, and held a voluntary meeting with some vendors, many of whom did not speak English.  He also posted signs saying “counterfeit is prohibit,” but these were meant to address counterfeit currency.  While he claimed to have ejected 16 vendors over a one year period, the court held that “this effort, if believed, is hardly compelling evidence of a reasonable response….”   Goodfellow claimed to believe other counterfeit goods were genuine, but did not check.  He did not train his employees to recognize counterfeits.  Vendors did not sign any agreements that they would not sell counterfeit goods.

The court found that Goodfellow’s remedial measures fell short.  It approved the district court’s conclusion that Goodfellow had engaged in “ostrich-like practices.”  According to the court, Goodfellow “continued to supply flea market resources to vendors with knowledge of and willful blindness toward ongoing infringing activities, thereby facilitating continued infringing activity.”

This supported the court’s finding that Goodfellow was contributorily liable.

Goodfellow equated his anti-counterfeiting efforts with those of eBay, which the court found acceptable in Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).   There Tiffany sued eBay for contributory liability for sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewelry on the eBay website.  Perhaps the most important distinction between the flea market bricks-and-mortar contributory infringement standard and that imposed on eBay is the speed with which items are listed and the sheer number of them.  The court in Tiffany held that eBay’s general knowledge that counterfeiting was occurring on its site did not create liability.  Specific knowledge (which Goodfellow had, but eBay did not) was required.  It didn’t hurt that eBay spent millions on anti-counterfeiting and had a sophisticated program for dealing with it.

Courts impose contributory liability on those who know about and facilitate counterfeiting, as well as those who would simply “stick their heads in the sand,” refusing to recognize or police it.  Increasingly, liability applies not only to those who sell goods, but also those that offer services.  Manufacturers and licensors suffering from numerous small scale counterfeits would do well to add actions for contributory counterfeiting and trademark infringement to their arsenals.

*     *     *

Janet Marvel is a partner with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.  Ms. Marvel’s practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling in domestic and international trademark, trade dress, Internet, and copyright law.  She co-authored the Sixth Edition of the Trademarks and Unfair Competition Deskbook, recently published by LexisNexis.

For a printer friendly version, click here.

January 31, 2013

Hear This: Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgment in Dispute over Headphone Trademarks Between Dolby Labs and Monster, Inc.

Filed under: Licensing, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 2:02 pm

JAWby Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger

From a dispute involving trademarks used in connection with headphones, we are reminded how inherently difficult it is to defeat a likelihood-of-confusion claim on summary judgment.

I.   The Parties

Monster, Inc., is a consumer electronics company, which sells a variety of goods to musicians and home-audio enthusiasts in connection with the following registered trademarks:


Dolby Laboratories specializes in audio-signal processing.  It licenses its technologies to manufacturers of audio/visual equipment and to content producers, who display Dolby’s trademarks on their products.  Many people may be familiar with the Dolby Double-D symbol from noise-reduction technologies used during the cassette-tape era.  More recently, most people have almost certainly encountered the following trademark on television broadcasts, DVD cases, home-theater equipment, and cinema screens:


Both parties either sell headphones or license technology used for headphones.  Monster sells a variety of higher-end headphones, which retail between $100 and $299 per pair.  Dolby developed a headphone technology that purports to deliver 7.1-channel surround sound to a single pair of headphone transducers and licenses this technology to manufacturers who display Dolby’s logo on their products.  Monster and Dolby use the following trademarks, respectively:


Dolby’s headphone mark has been registered since 2002.[1]  Monster applied to register its mark in 2008.  After Dolby opposed registration of Monster’s application, Monster filed suit in the Northern District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment that its headphone trademark did not infringe Dolby’s and that Dolby had abandoned its mark by failing to exercise sufficient control over its licensees.  Dolby counterclaimed for infringement.  Both parties moved for summary judgment. (more…)

January 11, 2013

Air Force 1 trade dress dispute held moot – Nike wins at Supreme Court, but at what cost?

Filed under: Litigation, Trade Dress, Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 10:41 am

UW low res

by Uli Widmaier

A sues B for infringing its registered mark.  B counterclaims for cancellation of A’s registration.  A executes a comprehensive covenant not to sue B in the future for using any colorable imitation of A’s mark, and moves to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  B, intent on pursuing its counterclaim, opposes the motion.  The district court holds that the case is moot, and grants A’s motion.  The Court of Appeals affirms, as does the Supreme Court.  Case over.

This is the short version of Already, LLC, v. Nike, Inc., decided unanimously by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2013.  See — U.S. –, No. 11-982 (U.S. January 9, 2013).  To put some meat on the factual bones:  Nike was the plaintiff, Already was the defendant, the mark was the trade dress of Nike’s famous Air Force 1 shoe, for which Nike has a federal registration.  Already sold shoes that Nike felt infringed the Air Force 1 trade dress.  Nike sued, Already counterclaimed.  Nike then reconsidered, successfully mooting the case via a unilateral covenant not to sue.  “The covenant promised that Nike would not raise against Already or any affiliated entity any trademark or unfair competition claim based on any of Already’s existing footwear designs, or any future Already designs that constituted a “colorable imitation” of Already’s current products.”  Already, slip op. at 2.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies (to a degree) the burden for showing the existence or absence of an actual controversy where a plaintiff seeks to moot a defendant’s counterclaim via a unilateral covenant not to sue.  But its importance lies just as much, if not more, in the barriers the Court erects against future uses of covenants not to sue, and in the insight it provides into the Justices’ thinking about trademarks and about basic competitive fairness.

The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts.  Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence, which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor joined.

I.    The Holding:  Burdens and Burden-Shifting

Both the district court and the Second Circuit held that, once Nike had executed the covenant not to sue, the burden was on Already to show that the case had not become moot.  Slip op., Kennedy concurrence at 1.  This was “wrong.”  Id.  “Under our precedents, it was Nike’s burden to show that it could not reasonably be expected to resume its enforcement efforts against Already.”  Slip op. at 5, quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000) (quotation marks omitted).  In other words, the “voluntary cessation doctrine” articulated in Friends of the Earth applies to Nike, who in this situation was the party who voluntarily ceased the allegedly wrongful conduct (i.e. a lawsuit based on an allegedly invalid registration) .  Id. at 5-6.  This burden imposed on Nike by the doctrine is a “formidable” one.  Id. at 6. (more…)

October 15, 2012

Motley Crue Successfully Moves for Dismissal of Suit Involving Copyright in “Too Fast for Love” Album Artwork

Filed under: Copyright, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 11:17 am

by Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger

On October 9, 2012, Judge Grady, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed a copyright-infringement action against rock band Mötley Crüe for lack of personal jurisdiction.[1]

The suit was brought by Ron Toma, who owns copyrights in certain photographs of band members Vince Neil, Nikki Sixx, Mick Mars, and Tommy Lee.  One of those photographs was a close up of singer Vince Neil’s waist area, featuring a prominent studded belt buckle (the “Belt Buckle Image”).

The photograph was taken by Michael Pinter in 1981 and used as the cover artwork for Mötley Crüe’s debut album, “Too Fast for Love.”  Toma acquired the copyright in that image in 2008 through assignment.  In September 2011, he filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against Motley Crue, Inc., alleging that the defendants infringed his copyright in the Belt Buckle Image by projecting it on screen during live performances.  He later amended the complaint to add the band’s touring company, Red White & Crue, Inc, as a defendant.  The only specific example of alleged infringement in the complaint is a link to a YouTube video showing live footage from a concert in Las Vegas, during which the Belt Buckle Image was displayed on a screen while the band performed the title track of the album.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Toma asserted the defendants were subject to general and specific jurisdiction in Illinois.  Relying on a declaration submitted by bass player, Nikki Sixx, Defendants asserted that they had no physical or legal presence in Illinois.  Toma argued otherwise, citing the band’s performances in Illinois, relationships with Illinois vendors, album and merchandise sales in Illinois, and activities related to a settlement agreement resolving a prior lawsuit with Toma in Illinois.  (This was actually Toma’s third suit against the band, notwithstanding that he apparently was a fan—his declaration stated that he attended Mötley Crüe concerts in Illinois in 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005, and 2006.)  The court found these contacts to be “extensive in the aggregate” but not “continuous and systematic” as required to meet “the demanding standard required to subject the defendants to general jurisdiction in Illinois.” (more…)

Older Posts »

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 88 other followers