Posts Tagged: "trademark infringement"

Still, it seems a little reckless to me to select a trademark that incorporates “ARMOR” or “ARMOUR” when entering an industry that has a heavyweight such as Under Armour with a large trademark portfolio and the means to enforce that portfolio. Is the name BODYARMOR so critical to the success of the company and selling their drinks? I doubt it. So then why run the risk of incurring the wrath of a well funded and well known trademark owner? It just doesn’t make business sense if you ask me. That is why I always advise companies to consider doing a rather exhaustive trademark search and obtaining an opinion from an attorney prior to spending money on adverting and marketing campaigns.

People have been arguing about the Internet since Al Gore invented it (sorry, I just couldn’t resist). One would think this issue would have been well settled by now but it’s not. The courts are starting to move toward some sort of congruency but there is still a very decided split in the decisions. And, as with oh-so-many issues in intellectual property, there is a litany of case law on the subject and not one bright line rule. It all boils down to what we consider a “use in commerce” and if we can call that “use” a source of confusion in the consumer. Briefly, in order to make a claim of trademark infringement stick, you have to show the defendant used your mark in commerce and you have to show that that use likely confused the purchasing public as to which company was actually selling that service or those goods. Since a metatag isn’t technically visible on the web page, federal courts haven’t agreed whether a metatag is “used or displayed in the sale or advertising of a service rendered in commerce or “placed in any manner” on a good transported in commerce”. See Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 1127 .

I don’t doubt that the Google Legal Team is an excellent department, and undoubtedly praiseworthy. It is also correct to say that they are dealing on nearly a daily basis with cutting edge issues that relate to the use of intellectual property in a still young medium — the Internet. It is also true to observe that they have had to deal with antitrust matters, patent litigations, copyright and trademark matters, not to mention the undoubtedly countless private matters that we haven’t yet learned about and many we won’t ever learn about. Nevertheless, I wonder whether there is a premature victory lap or recognition that is just slightly ahead of accomplishment. Certainly if Google scores a final victory in the Rosetta Stone appeal on trademarks (more below) and can resurrect the book settlement (more below) that would go a long way to justifying this award, I just wonder whether it might be a year ahead of schedule and a bit akin to President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize after only a few months in Office.

After pulling a campaign commercial earlier this week after the National Football League accused him of copyright infringement by using NFL footage, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) made another ad fumble – infringing on a trademark owned by Americans for Prosperity (AFP). In his campaign commercial, “Hands Off,” Senator Feingold infringes on “Hands Off My Health Care,” an AFP trademark used during the debate over the federal health care legislation.

On September 3, 2010, IHOP IP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the owner of various IHOP registered trademarks in the United States, sued the International House of Prayer alleging various trademark infringement theories. The plaintiff IHOP brings two causes of action against the defendant. The first being the claim that the defendant through the use of various IHOP marks is engaging in dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). The second claim is straight trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114. Notably, the plaintiff IHOP did not bring a cause of action alleging likelihood of confusion, which is typically a ubiquitous cause of action in these types of cases.

Classic Ink, Inc., owner of Classic Sports Logos brand apparel line and rapidly growing trademark licensing firm, secured a major legal victory in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against American Needle, Inc., and its Red Jacket apparel business on Aug. 6, 2010. After a five-day trial, the seven-member jury returned a unanimous verdict finding American Needle and its Red Jacket apparel business infringed Classic Ink’s trademark rights. Readers may recall that just a few months ago it was American Needle that celebrated an important win, with a win over the National Football League at the United States Supreme Court. See American Needle v. National Football League.

The buzz continues about Lindsay Lohan’s suit against E*TRADE over its use of the name “Lindsay” to identify a “milkaholic” character in the latest in its ongoing series of talking-babies commercials. Not coincidentally, shortly before the Academy Awards broadcast—Army Sergeant Jeffrey S. Sarver brought suit in the District of New Jersey, alleging that the lead character of the film The Hurt Locker, which subsequently won the Best Picture Oscar, was a depiction of him, for which he was owed compensation.

The recent dispute involving Lindsay Lohan and ETrade provides an opportunity for critically examining the right of publicity. One defense that ETrade could raise would be parody since it is common practice – and a strongly protected free speech right – to make fun of people. Nevertheless, courts have distinguished between simply making fun of someone and making fun of someone in order to sell a product.