Articles Posted in Trademarks

Pincher’s Crab Shack, a restaurant chain with seven locations in Southwest Florida, is taking on fast-food giant Wendy’s in a trademark lawsuit. In a case filed in federal court on July 12, 2011, Pincher’s asserts that Wendy’s has stolen its trademarked slogan, “You Can’t Fake Fresh,” and used it in its advertising on television, radio, and the Internet. Wendy’s actions “are likely to cause public confusion, mistake, or deception, and constitute trademark infringement,” Pincher’s attorneys wrote in their complaint, which alleges infringement, unfair competition, and false statements of origin under both federal and Florida law. Pincher’s is seeking more than $2 million in damages.

“Defendants have openly and actively engaged in the unauthorized, infringing, unlicensed, and imitative use of the exact same trademark registered exclusively to Plaintiff, namely YOU CAN’T FAKE FRESH for the exact same services protected in Plaintiff’s federal registration, namely ‘restaurant services,’ in the exact same geographic area in which Plaintiff uses its Mark, in commercial advertising and in exact and direct competition with Plaintiff,” wrote Pincher’s attorney Jennifer Whitelaw of Naples, Fla., in the complaint. Whitelaw was also quoted in the press as saying, “It’s a great trademark. Our client worked hard to create it and our legal team worked hard to protect it and to successfully register it. From there, apparently it caught the eye of another suitor. Admiring our client’s mark is understandable, but this is a bit more admiration than what the law allows.”

Slogans are protectable under federal trademark law, provided they are used in such a way as to identify and distinguish the trademark owner’s goods and services from those of others. Because the touchstone for liability in any trademark action is the likelihood of confusion, however, trademark infringement does not necessarily occur where slogans serve a subsidiary role to a service provider’s “main” trademark. In other words, if “You Can’t Fake Fresh” is always preceded in advertising by either “Pincher’s Crab Shack” or “Wendy’s,” it may be difficult to prove consumer confusion.

A U.S. district judge in Virginia has adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny a Minnesota man’s motion to dismiss a trademark complaint against him in a case that centered around an automobile service center franchise, and to enter a judgment against the service center he operated in an amount to be determined by an accounting of its profits during the period it infringed the plaintiff’s trademarks by using its logos after being denied franchisee status.

Precision Franchising LLC, a Virginia company, licenses an automobile service system and owns several associated trademarks. Precision permits its licensees to use its business methods and its marks. Motorscope, Inc., was one of Precision Franchising’s franchisees. Lene Corporation, a Minnesota company with its principal place of business in Minnesota–a company that was wholly owned by Cary Lene-Tarango, the Minnesota businessman–attempted to purchase Motorscope’s franchise and to assume Motorscope’s rights and duties under the franchise agreement. Precision Franchising denied permission to Lene to make the purchase, finding that Lene’s balance sheet did not show it to be financially sound.

Lene went ahead in any case and started to use Precision Franchising’s trademarks as if it were indeed a franchisee. Since at no time was Lene a franchisee of Precision Franchising, Precision Franchising sued Lene and Tarango in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the Lanham Act for unfair competition and trademark infringement. Neither defendant filed an answer to the complaint. Tarango, however, filed a letter that was treated as a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him since he is located in Minnesota and had no significant contacts with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

A new line of women’s footwear now being sold by Yves Saint-Laurent has high-end French shoe designer Christian Louboutin seeing red. Louboutin’s companies, asserting that a new line of red Yves Saint-Laurent shoes violates their U.S. trademark, recently filed a trademark infringement suit in federal court in Manhattan against YSL. The lawsuit raises the interesting question: can a color be trademarked?

Louboutin’s trademark lawyers explain that the issue isn’t about ownership of a color so much as whether a shoe designer can have a proprietary interest in the use of distinctive red soles. According to the complaint, Louboutin first thought of the idea of painting the outer soles of his shoes red in 1992. Ever since then–for nearly two decades–every shoe in his collection has had that distinctive stylistic feature.

“Louboutin Footwear is instantly recognizable as a result of Plaintiffs’ trademark red outsole,” the complaint declares. “The location of the bright color on the outsole of a woman’s pump is said to provide an alluring ‘flash of red’ when a woman walks down the street, or on the red carpet of a special event.” The complaint provides a long list of celebrities who have worn the shoes and even includes two photos of the Carrie Bradshaw character on Sex and the City, played by Sarah Jessica Parker, wearing the shoes with the “alluring flash of red.”

Apple Inc. has done very well with its App Store, a service that permits users to download programs of every type for use on their iPhones, iPods, iPads, and computers. With more than 350,000 software offerings, it’s by far the largest place online for people to get hold of the programs they want for their Apple devices. Apple’s trademark lawyers are now seeking to protect and enforce a trademark in the name “App Store,” a phrase they claim exclusive rights to, by filing a lawsuit in federal court against Amazon.com. It claims Amazon’s “Appstore” is infringing upon Apple’s trademark. Amazon’s activities, Apple alleges, are causing irreparable harm to Apple, and Apple is trying to get an injunction and damages from Amazon.

The case raises a lot of interesting issues. First, is the term “app store” even subject to trademark protection? Generic terms like “grocery store” and “shoe store” generally cannot be trademarked because they merely identify the product or service being offered. If an “app store” is merely a store that sells “apps,” which is usually viewed as a shorthand term for computer applications or software, the courts may treat the term no differently than it would a proposed trademark for a “shoe store.” In that case, Apple’s efforts would fail.

On the other hand, Apple will no doubt contend that it has used the term “app store” exclusively since 2008 and has advertised it extensively – and thus that the term has acquired a “secondary meaning” under trademark law. That means that when consumers think of an “app store,” they think of Apple’s highly popular service. So if Amazon uses the term, the argument runs, consumers will come to the incorrect conclusion that Amazon’s “app store” is identical with the Apple service, and Apple’s business will be harmed.

Does use of the name “Blingville” by a small game developer from Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, infringe the trademark rights of Zynga, creator of FarmVille? Does Zynga have a monopoly on Facebook applications ending in “ville”? Blingville has filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of West Virginia to find out.

Zynga’s games have been extremely popular – and profitable – on Facebook in the last two years. The company says it has more than 295 million monthly active users on site for its six games — CityVille, FarmVille, FishVille, FrontierVille, PetVille, and YoVille. Blingville is just getting started with commercializing its game. It says another company, Overtime Apps, registered the Blingville.com domain name in October 2004 and that in November 2010, it filed a trademark registration application for the use of the name. Then, according to Blingville, Overtime Apps assigned its rights in the trademark to Blingville.

When Zynga got wind of what Blingville was doing, it sent several cease-and-desist letters to Blingville, claiming trademark infringement and threatening to sue for alleged violations of the Lanham Act. “Use of the name,” Zynga’s deputy general counsel told an online magazine, “is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the fame and goodwill associated with Zynga’s family of ‘ville’ games which includes FarmVille and CityVille. We are prepared to take all necessary steps to protect our intellectual property rights.”

Access Designs, Inc., a company that manufactures TubcuT®, a product that alters regular bathtubs to convert them into walk-in showers, has filed a trademark-infringement suit against The BathWorks Company in federal district court in Charlottesville, Virginia. According to the allegations of the Complaint, two former representatives of Access Designs, Greg and Ellen Murphy, formed BathWorks in Rhode Island and began selling a product similar to TubcuT® and marketing it under the name “Tubcut” or “Tubcuts”, creating a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace with respect to the origin of the customized bathtubs.

The suit is based on the provisions of the Lanham Act that govern trademark infringement and unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a). To win on both allegations, Access Designs must prove three things: (1) that its mark is valid, (2) that The BathWorks Company’s use of the mark is unauthorized, and (3) that BathWorks’ use of the mark is likely to cause customers to be confused.

Access Designs has a little bit of a head start in that TubcuT® is registered with the Patent and Trademark Office, as registered marks carry a presumption of validity. The key issue in the case is likely to be whether BathWorks is using a mark that is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of the parties’ respective products. To determine the likelihood of consumer confusion, courts generally consider factors such as (1) the strength of plaintiff’s mark; (2) the relatedness or “proximity” of the parties’ goods or services; (3) similarity of the parties’ marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers; (7) the defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8) the likelihood of expansion of product lines.