Tag Archives: Diversion

Aw, shucks

Originally posted 2008-06-12 12:50:01. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

We already covered the Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins summary judgment decision, and linked to commentators Greg Beck, Bill Patry, Rebecca Tushnet, Eric Goldman and Jason Lee Miller.

But it’s positively nerve-wracking reading the commentary of someone like Evan Brown! 😉

Best of 2008: Which exit did we get off, again?

Posted on September 7, 2008.

Well, maybe we’ve been too hard on the Democrats here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®.  Perhaps unlike the GOP, they’ve got good, progressive IP counsel out there, and maybe an Obama Administration will take a more realistic view of what you can and can’t do on the Internet.  At least we know they don’t have any hangups about “deceptive key word advertising” or “Internet traffic diversion,” the modern bugaboos of Internet trademark litigation.  Turns out they think those things are pretty keen!

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Above is a screen shot (click for full size) of a search result you got if you searched Google for SARAH PALIN SPEECH on Saturday night — note the sponsored link on top, in color, that links to the Democratic Convention website, DemConvention.com:

The link tells Internet users they’re going to a page called DemCovention.com/RNC.  Wow, are they showing the Palin speech in order to get you to compare it critically to what the DNC has to offer?  It’s comparison shopping, right?  A modern-day Miracle on 34th Street!

Well, no.  Here’s what you actually get: Read More…

Best of 2008: The Long and Rocky Road

Originally posted 2008-12-27 20:06:57. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

This was first posted on May 7, 2008.
beatle_icecreamIrvin Robbins, the co-founder of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, died yesterday. Here’s how much time has passed since just about the time your blogger was born, in ice cream marketing years:

When the Beatles were to arrive in the United States in 1964, a reporter called to ask whether Baskin-Robbins was going to commemorate the event with a new flavor.

Robbins didn’t have a flavor planned but quickly replied, “Uh, Beatle Nut, of course.”

The flavor was created, manufactured and delivered in just five days, according to the Web site.

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Hah! Can you imagine? Without a sponsorship deal!

“Diversion!” “Free riding!” “Initial interest confusion!” “LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®!” And, of course, “Dilution!”

No…. none of those things. Just tribute. And, yes, a little profit too. The Beatles… probably didn’t miss it. They were a musical act, and song writers, interested in rhythm and blues, not sprinkles and scoops.

We’re not against intellectual property here.

Read More…

Best of 2008: The Long and Rocky Road

Originally posted 2008-12-27 20:06:57. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

This was first posted on May 7, 2008.

Irvin Robbins, the co-founder of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, died yesterday. Here’s how much time has passed since just about the time your blogger was born, in ice cream marketing years:

When the Beatles were to arrive in the United States in 1964, a reporter called to ask whether Baskin-Robbins was going to commemorate the event with a new flavor.

Robbins didn’t have a flavor planned but quickly replied, “Uh, Beatle Nut, of course.”

The flavor was created, manufactured and delivered in just five days, according to the Web site.

Hah! Can you imagine? Without a sponsorship deal! “Diversion!” “Free riding!” “Initial interest confusion!”beatle_icecream “LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®!” And, of course, “Dilution!”

No…. none of those things. Just tribute. And, yes, a little profit too. The Beatles… probably didn’t miss it. They were a musical act, and song writers, interested in rhythm and blues, not sprinkles and scoops.

We’re not against intellectual property here. Not at all. But there was a time when you could have a little fun, even in business, doing something that sounds like “trading on” the name and fame of the phenomena of public life without having to fear cadres of IP lawyers demanding cessation and desistence, claiming confusion as to source-sponsorship-or-affiliation, and reserving all rights on fancy colored letterhead delivered simultaneously by certified mail / RRR and PDF via email.

As any Beatle Nut knows, today the Beatles-inspired theme of big-IP rent-maximizing business would be what Bungalow Bill‘s mom told the children when they asked those uncomfortable questions: “If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him!”

Sounds good to me! Preliminary injunction granted!

Judge: “Go after your distributors, not free enterprise”

Originally posted 2007-11-27 14:59:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Quality KingJudges — especially in the Eastern District of New York — are picking up what’s going on in the “elite salons” end of the trademarks-as-distribution-method-enforcement scam.  Ever hear of Quality King?  Says Forbes:

Quality King Distributors has grown from a small shop in Queens, New York to a large distributor of pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products. The company re-imports exported U.S.-branded over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and personal care products and sells them at deep discounts. Clients include drugstore and supermarket chains, grocery distributors, wholesale clubs and mass-merchant discounters. Glenn Nussdorf and his wife started Quality King in 1961, and the Nussdorf family still owns the company.

That can’t stand, can it?  Well, maybe it can:

A federal judge has blasted the L’oreal company, and former federal law enforcement officials it employs, for trying to bolster what he said was a very weak civil case by attempting to get former Justice Department colleagues to prosecute criminally a longtime business opponent. …

U.S. District Judge Leonard Wexler in Central Islip recently ruled against Paris- and New York-based L’oreal in a 2004 civil lawsuit brought by the company against Ronkonkoma-based Quality King Distributors, a $3-billion-a-year distributor of hair-care and other products, as well as its spinoff company, N.J.-based Pro’s Choice. The suit was the most recent round of an ongoing 17-year legal battle between L’oreal and Quality King.

L’oreal sought in its suit the enforcement of a 1990 injunction that barred Quality King and Pro’s Choice from buying and reselling an upscale line of hair shampoos and conditioners, sold by L’oreal under the names Matrix and ARTec.

That should be good enough, right?  Well, not if Judge Wexler smells baloney: Read More…

Online use of trademarks and copyrights by “unauthorized distributors”

Originally posted 2007-10-06 20:57:56. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION does not generally comment about active cases in which we are directly involved. But a very important and detailed (61 pages!) summary judgment decision came down in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week, in the case of S & L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc., 2:05-cv-1217 in which I represent the plaintiff. And while we will not comment on the decision, for obvious reasons, any reader of this blog involved in trademarks and the Internet will want to read it. So here it is. Credit to David Nieporent, co-author on the plaintiff’s brief!

UPDATE: Cogent commentary from Eric Goldman and Matthew Sag; now comes Rebecca Tushnet.

U.S. District of Arizona: “No automatic injunction upon a finding of copyright infringement”

Originally posted 2008-09-05 17:38:37. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Not that the plaintiffs in the Designer Skin case didn’t get an injunction:  They did (here it is); a narrow one utilizing proposed language by defendants explicitly permitting S&L to use its own photographs of Designer Skin merchandise on its website (see the prior post).  But the Court ruled that they were not entitled to it merely by virtue of proving copyright infringement.  Here’s an excerpt from the opinion, discussing the point:

The parties dispute the law governing the issuance of a permanent injunction in a copyright-infringement case. Relying on MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993), Designer Skin argues that “a permanent injunction [should] be granted in a copyright infringement case when liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations.”  Conversely, S & L Vitamins argues that the MAI rule has been overruled by the recent Supreme Court opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and that the traditional four-factor test reaffirmed by eBay applies.

MAI’s general rule may accurately describe the result of applying the four-factor test to a copyright-infringement case in which liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations. Nevertheless, as Judge Wilson persuasively demonstrated in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1209-10 (C.D. Cal. 2007), this general rule, as a rule, is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay. Thus, for the reasons given by Judge White in Grokster, Designer Skin’s reliance on this pre-eBay rule is unavailing, and the Court will apply the traditional four-factor test. . . .

This is an important holding, making the District of Arizona among the handful of earliest courts to apply the rule of eBay to copyright infringement.  After the jump, you can see how the court did apply it to one particular factor of interest, the need for a plaintiff seeking an injunction to prove irreparable harm.  The court agreed with S&L that past infringement does not lead to a presumption of future infringement. Unfortunately, to our client’s (nominal) detriment, and despite our argument that, seeing as how Designer Skin enunciated no coherent description of harm it suffered by the infringement — and that, in fact, it probably benefited from it — an injunction should not issue, the court found that there was irreparable harm, for reasons best expressed in its own words. Read More…

Fat lady sings: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in Designer Skin v S & L Vitamins

Originally posted 2008-09-05 17:01:27. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The District of Arizona ruled today in a case we defended through trial and have reported on here extensively.  The decision is here; the minute entry on the electronic docket reads as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW – that S & L Vitamins has infringed Designer Skin’s copyrights in the electronic renderings of the 42 products styled [by various brand names] and that Designer Skin is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining S & L Vitamins from any such future infringement of these copyrights;

FURTHER ORDERED that S & L Vitamins has not infringed Designer Skin’s copyrights in the electronic renderings of the 12 products styled [by various brand names];

FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs in this matter.

Signed by Judge James A Teilborg

No attorneys’ fees for either side.  The injunction reads as follows (per the minute entry); prefatory language is omitted and emphasis is added:

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION in favor of Designer Skin, LLC against S&L Vitamins, Inc. . . . S & L Vitamins . . . are hereby immediately and permanently ENJOINED from publicly displaying, using, copying, or otherwise infringing Designer Skin’s copyrights in these electronic renderings for any purpose whatsoever. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed to enjoin S & L Vitamins from taking, using, or displaying original photographs of the physical Products themselves in connection with S & L Vitamins’ sale of the Products on the internet.

Signed by Judge James A Teilborg

Interested persons may wish to ponder how, and to what extent, the Court addressed the issues framed by the counsel for the respective parties, including identification of what indeed are “Designer Skin’s copyrights in [its] electronic renderings,” by considering the proposed findings and facts and conclusions of law submitted by the plaintiffs, and by the defendants, respectively.

For practitioners interested in the law of injunctions, the most interesting part of the decision concerns the court’s application of the rule in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) that there is no automatic entitlement to an injunction upon a finding of infringement to a copyright infringement case.  We have made a separate post addressing that part of the decision.

S&L’s website is here, by the way.  Buy Designer Skin lotion from S&L!  It’s the way both sides pay their lawyers!

Google, Geico Good to Go

Originally posted 2005-09-08 01:30:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Google and Geico have settled.

Diversion, yes, but no

Originally posted 2009-11-26 08:30:51. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Some people have all the luck in the Eastern District of New York.  Whereas me — I think I’ve got it coming to me right down the middle, and then it seems to get, I don’t know — diverted from me!

So some lawyers get assigned judges in the Eastern District of New York whose ideas about trademark law and, well, the Federal Rules of Evidence — and, actually, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have, well, um . . . okay, I won’t say.  But in their courtrooms this is the kind of thing happens to “unauthorized resellers,” regardless of the actual “law” stuff.

RDC BIG BEARDI know, regular readers are sick of hearing about the S&L case, but I’m just framing the story here, okay?  Stick with me.

And then there are other judges in that same court who actually not only get it, but really, really, really get it:  There’s no such thing as “diversion” of authentic, untainted merchandise by “unauthorized” resale on the Internet.  Whether or not the manufacuter of a product thinks you need a whole two years of community college or that certificate from beauty school to slather on hair goop or tanning sludge, that preference does not “run with” the over-hyped blech they sell.

No, go THIS store!

No, go THIS store!

So — still setting the stage here, stay with me! — Judge Leonard Wexler, in 2007, went this far to make that point, as reported here exactly two year agos from tomorrow:

L’Oréal maintains that to keep the value, integrity and status of the products, they are supposed to be sold only by company-trained professionals in fashionable salons. Matrix alone “has been the number one professional hair brand on the market, with an estimated 16 percent market share,” L’Oréal said in court papers.

Quality King and Pro’s Choice, however, were obtaining the products in violation of the injunction by buying them, or, as it is called, diverting them, from middlemen and reselling them to nonqualified dealers, L’Oréal contended.

In his opinion, Wexler declined to enforce the old injunction, in effect, throwing out L’Oréal’s case against the two companies.

The judge said that if L’Oréal wanted seriously “to stop diversion of Matrix products,” it could terminate those of its distributors who are the sources of the diverted products.

He actually declined to enforce the old injunction, did Judge Wexler, because it would have actually been, well, wrong to!  Because of the law stuff.

Isn’t that enough mazal for Quality King?  Can’t some other lawyers in other courtrooms in that District have some of that good fortune?

No!  Evidently, on appeal of the earlier decision, the Second Circuit affirmed his vacatur (cancellation) of the injunction going forward, but remanded for further determination of whether the injunction should be not only — not “only”! — vacated, but also “terminated,” i.e., retroactively time-traveled into non-ever-existence.

So once more comes Matrix, the plaintiff, and with them this time big guns from the collossal Weil Gotshal, a real New York law firm this time.  So, was it a good idea to spend a good 50% more on fees (not to mention their markup on donuts!) to make the same arguments? Read More…

Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins trial update

Originally posted 2008-07-17 11:39:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The remaining issues in the case, you may recall, were copyright infringement and Arizona unfair competition. Here is the status per this morning’s minute entry in the court’s electronic case filing docket:

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge James A Teilborg on 7/16/2008: Jury Trial – Day 2 held. Plaintiff’s case continues. Evidence and testimony presented. Plaintiff rests. Defendant rests. The Court grants defendant’s oral Rule 50 Motion as to statutory damages, actual damages and unfair competition claim. The Court grants defendant’s oral Rule 50 motion to dismiss defendant Lawrence Sagarin as a defendant. The remaining issue in the case is the injunction issue. Closing arguments. Jury deliberations. Jury to return at 9:00 a.m. 7/17/2008 to resume deliberations. (Court Reporter David German.) (TLB )

A tad terse and bloodless — quite unlike how trial has gone.  Not terse or bloodless at all.  [UPDATE:  Here’s the transcript.  Dismissal of the damages claims were stipulated; see the ruling from the bench at page 124 of the PDF for the ruling as to Sagarin.]

“The Court grants defendant’s oral Rule 50 Motion as to statutory damages, actual damages and unfair competition claim” means “The Court grants defendant’s’ oral motion to dismiss Designer Skin’s claims for statutory damages, actual damages and unfair competition. (Earlier on the court declined to take our “suggestion” of a lack of copyright jurisdiction.)

So, so far: No damages, no plaintiff attorneys’ fees in play. Jury (advisory per Rule 39(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; injunction against further use of Designer Skin’s “electronic renderings” is not a jury issue, but they are charged with deciding whether there was copyright infringement) is out; they return this morning, Phoenix time, at 9.

We will update and backfill…

UPDATE: The jury returned a verdict of infringement on 42 of the 54 copyrights. In post-verdict interviews, interestingly, the jurors reported they would have awarded no damages, or nominal damages, had the judge permitted them to consider damages. (Per the above the damages claims were dismissed.) The jurors rejected the idea that a manufacturer is entitled to damages in connection with the sale by third parties of merchandise the manufacturer already sold once before, regardless of the legal theory. This came as quite a surprise to the plaintiff’s legal team, whereas the advisory verdict of infringement (which the court indicated he would adopt) was not particularly surprising to us… considering.

RELATED POST: Two Cities.

Best of 2013: Kirtsaeng and Copyright: First sale means first sale

Originally published March 19, 2013.Rotunda area, Newark historic courthouseThe Supreme Court handed down a huge decision in copyright law today, ruling in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the first sale doctrine, which allows for legally acquired copyright-protected works (or, in trademark, goods bearing a trademark) to be resold by their owners, applies to works made overseas — notwithstanding language in the Copyright Act that many courts had held suggested otherwise.

My first involvement in litigation centered on this question was in a case called Pearson v. Textbook Discounters in the Southern District of New York.  It is one of many such cases that had been brought by textbook publishers against resellers of “foreign editions” of American textbooks.  At the time, despite some questioning in a number of decisions, the overwhelming trend (especially in that District) was in favor of the publishers’ efforts to utilize a provision of the Copyright Act to control prices charged to American students for their college textbooks by forbidding the domestic sale of cheaper — but materially identical — versions for the overseas market.  Eric Goldman explains well in this 2009 post about another case Pearson and other publishers brought at the same time, Pearson Education, Inc. v. Liu, 2009 WL 3064779 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009):

Defendants are book resellers participating on various websites under the alias “JMBooks.” They purchase legitimate copies of cheaper international editions of textbooks, ship them to the US, and then resell them online to US students in competition with the US editions of the same textbooks. The court describes the differences between the international and US editions:

The textbooks plaintiffs publish are customized for the geographical markets in which they are sold. Editions authorized for sale in the United States are of the highest quality, and are printed with strong, hard-cover bindings with glossy protective coatings. Sometimes, plaintiffs include academic supplements, such as CD-ROMs or passwords to restricted websites, with these books. Editions authorized for sale outside of the United States, by contrast, have thinner paper, different bindings, different cover and jacket designs, fewer ink colors, and lower-quality photographs and graphics. These foreign editions are not bundled with academic supplements such as CD-ROMs. The cover of a foreign edition may include a legend indicating that the book is a “Low Price Edition” or only authorized for sale in a particular country or geographic region.  The foreign editions are uniformly manufactured outside the United States.

Students usually purchase a textbook only because the instructor required it, and even then they expect to “enjoy” the textbook for only [one] quarter or semester. So many students may not care about the lower quality printing or absence of various supplements, in which case the international editions could serve as a viable and cost-effective substitute for the US editions. Accordingly, Internet resale of the international editions creates a major channel conflict for the publishers and destroys their efforts to price discriminate by geography.

To block this substitution (in technical speak, to stop the parallel importation of the grey market goods), the publishers invoke the importation right in copyright law (17 USC 602). The defendants respond that the importation right, like the distribution right in 106(3), is subject to the First Sale limitations in Sec. 109(a). If so, the defendants hoped to take advantage of the fact that they bought legitimate copies of the international editions to allow them to freely resell those copies to US buyers.

That hope wasn’t working out so well.   Read More…