Tag Archives: Initial Interest Confusion

The law on initial interest confusion: Interestingly confusing

Oh joy, 9th Cir. embraces initial interest confusion again http://t.co/3Zaqg3DuQd Bad ruling over Amazon’s internal search. I’ll blog soon

Ah, my old friend initial interest confusion. How far back we go! I don’t remember anyone screaming about the way I was when I wrote this piece in 2003, though this article preceded mine by a couple of years.   Everyone in the academy who thinks about how trademarks work on the Interne “has to despise” IIC (the law profs call it IIC); the trademark plaintiff’s bar, on the other hand, is addicted to it.  There are those who seek a less black-and-white approach, too — which, to be fair, includes INTA per that last link — but it seems that most courts that accept IIC use it without the surgical level of focus that INTA suggests is appropriate.

 

But no one has been eagerly awaiting its demise more than Eric Goldman, who has pronounced it all-but-dead too many times for his own taste — and, again, mine, since the ups and downs have involved a lot of my own cases. Memories, memories.  Some people can just delete them, toss them away like an old rag, but not me.  They burn forever!

Sometimes they burn brightly, such as when the Eastern District of New York rejected the doctrine, though without ringing declaration of death, in Ascentive v. Opinion Corp. and Devere v. Opinion Corp.  Other times the burn was harsh, as when the Third Circuit relied on it, in part, to keep the complaint of Amerigas against the same defendant just alive enough.

It wasn’t even so long ago that Eric, who has a special obsession with the use of IIC to find a basis for liability in the unauthorized use of metatags by competitors Read More…

Best of 2010: Drive-by infringement

Originally posted 2010-12-15 08:00:28. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Coca-Cola Host of the Highways

Commuter Host

Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process  seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy:

Whatever the criticisms might be to the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion, including those detailed by our friends Ron ColemanMarty Schwimmer, and Eric Goldman, in the context of keyword advertising, the road-side restaurant sign shown [at left] definitely is “the real thing” for purposes of trademark initial interest confusion, in more ways than one:

It does depict the Coca-Cola brand, in all its glory, after all, so It’s The Real Thing, by definition.

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

And, unlike the very hypothetical scenario relied upon in the Wolf Appliance case, the above drive-in restaurant signage is real world and in current use, designed to attract attention, and has been for years, in fact, well after the business responsible for the sign dropped Coca-Cola for Pepsi. That’s right, “no Coke, Pepsi.” To twist Sean Penn’s words in I Am Sam, Wagner’s change was a “very bad choice,” at least in my humble opinion of taste.

Yeah, me too.  I used to think I liked Pepsi better.  Crazy!  It’s one more reason Steve and I are likethis.  More: Read More…

Best of 2006: Side by side comparison doesn’t decide likelihood of confusion

Originally posted 2006-07-11 17:14:18. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Dooney & Bourke’s pattern

Originally posted on July 11, 2006.

This is an important decision: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has partially reversed the earlier ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (full decision here) in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Here’s the “money quote” as a once-great blogger taught me to say (citations and internal quotes omitted; link added) :

We turn next to the question of likelihood of confusion. . . . The similarity of the marks is a key factor in determining likelihood of confusion. To apply this factor, courts must analyze the mark’s overall impression on a consumer, considering the context in which the marks are displayed and the totality of factors that could cause confusion among prospective purchasers.’ The district court here noted that there were “obvious

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

similarities” between the Louis Vuitton and Dooney & Bourke handbags. However, it determined that despite the similarities, the two marks were not confusingly similar. It appears the trial court made the same mistake that we criticized in [the] Burlington Coat Factory [decision]: inappropriately focusing on the similarity of the marks in a side-by-side comparison instead of when viewed sequentially in the context of the marketplace.

The district court reasoned:

Read More…

Legal in Phoenix, liable in Central Islip

Originally posted 2009-01-21 18:24:42. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Sandra Day O'Connor courthouse in her glory

Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, Phoenix, Arizona

UPDATE: All the below is still very relevant, very important and very significant — except as to the final judgment, which has been vacated by consent and replaced with this Agreed Injunction and Order.

My client S&L Vitamins and I just suffered a devastating loss in its Eastern District of New York litigation against Australian Gold (now owned by a holding company called New Sunshine, LLC) after a five-day jury trial on claims by AG for tortious interference with contract and trademark infringement.  I posted both sides’ trial briefs here.  The jury instructions in the Australian Gold case are here.  I will post more documents later.

Before sharing the verdict and recounting some extraordinary highlights of the trial, here’s some background.  I am focusing on the contrast between this outcome and the mirror-image rulings on virtually identical operative facts in the Designer Skin case, discussed below, also involving my client — not because it must be the case that the court in Designer Skin was right and the court in Australian Gold was wrong, but to point out the utter inconsistency of these rulings and the impossibility of doing business in such a legal environment: Read More…

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!

Drive-by infringement

Originally posted 2010-05-04 01:28:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Coca-Cola Host of the Highways

Commuter Host

Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process  seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy:

Wagner's Coca Cola SignWhatever the criticisms might be to the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion, including those detailed by our friends Ron ColemanMarty Schwimmer, and Eric Goldman, in the context of keyword advertising, the road-side restaurant sign shown [at left] definitely is “the real thing” for purposes of trademark initial interest confusion, in more ways than one:

It does depict the Coca-Cola brand, in all its glory, after all, so It’s The Real Thing, by definition.

And, unlike the very hypothetical scenario relied upon in the Wolf Appliance case, the above drive-in restaurant signage is real world and in current use, designed to attract attention, and has been for years, in fact, well after the business responsible for the sign dropped Coca-Cola for Pepsi. That’s right, “no Coke, Pepsi.” To twist Sean Penn’s words in I Am Sam, Wagner’s change was a “very bad choice,” at least in my humble opinion of taste.

Yeah, me too.  I used to think I liked Pepsi better.  Crazy!  It’s one more reason Steve and I are likethis.  More:

Last, it certainly is a good example of the Initial Interest Confusion doctrine at work.

Uh oh.  Like the old “Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead” story, I’m afraid this sincere run at resuscitating initial interest confusion is a grave error.  For now Steve would take us from the brand-laden anecdote and the cultural mix-and-match moment to–as if  he were a judge in a Lanham Act case! (some day, I’m sure!)–slapping some poor sap with legal liability over what’s probably just laziness, business logic or a little bit of both.  Here’s his real-life tale of interest, initially and heartbreakingly confused:

Minneapolis drivers on Highway 81 pull off the road for a great cheeseburger and a refreshing Coca-Cola, or in my case, Diet Coke. Only to find that there is no Diet Coke, or any Coca-Cola products for that matter, only Pepsi products. Drivers likely aren’t confused at the point of purchase, however, since the menu and interior soda fountain signage refer to Pepsi not Coke. Nevertheless, the exterior sign no doubt has steered more than a few thirsty types off the road over the years to end up purchasing Pepsi products, not Coca-Cola products.

Not me, however, I’m not even initially confused any longer, just annoyed with the change, and deciding with each visit, well in advance, to enjoy a chocolate malt instead of a soft drink, since I can’t have the real thing any longer at Wagner’s Drive-In II.

I’m not the first to say that, unlike a refreshing Coca-Cola® brand soft drink beverage product, this “detour of doom” argument leaves me flat.

Coca-Cola Sign of Good Taste

Lord, just show me a sign!

Read More…

Side by side comparison doesn’t decide likelihood of confusion

Originally posted 2006-07-11 17:14:18. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Dooney & Bourke’s pattern

This is an important decision: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has partially reversed the earlier ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (full decision here) in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Here’s the “money quote” as a once-great blogger taught me to say (citations and internal quotes omitted; link added) :

We turn next to the question of likelihood of confusion. . . . The similarity of the marks is a key factor in determining likelihood of confusion. To apply this factor, courts must analyze the mark’s overall impression on a consumer, considering the context in which the marks are displayed and the totality of factors that could cause confusion among prospective purchasers.’ The district court here noted that there were “obvious similarities” between the Louis Vuitton and Dooney & Bourke handbags. However, it determined that despite the similarities, the two marks were not confusingly similar. It appears the trial court made the same mistake that we criticized in [the] Burlington Coat Factory [decision]: inappropriately focusing on the similarity of the marks in a side-by-side comparison instead of when viewed sequentially in the context of the marketplace. The district court reasoned:

Read More…

District of New Jersey: Initial interest, other confusion okay in search terms claim

Originally posted 2006-07-19 20:45:27. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Just when the Southern District of New York was hinting that it might be safe to go back in the water and stop worrying about “initial interest confusion,” a friend in a position to care a lot about the result passes along the just-out decision in 800-JR Cigar, Inc., v. GOTO.COM, Inc., from the other side of the water (the Hudson, that is). Salient points: Read More…

Best of 2010: “Drive-by infringement”

Originally posted 2010-12-15 08:00:28. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The last couple of weeks of the year or so I always re-post, with typical humility, the “Best of 2010.”  I arrange it in a sort of month-by-month recapitulation.  It’s like having your whole life passing before your eyes right before you die, only you aren’t going to die.  Yet.

This year is no different.  But it’s better, see?  Because I’m going to start even earlier!  I’ll still do the month-by-month, but not until starting next week, see?  This week what I’ll do to avoid having to write new posts is … re-run some other ones!   In no special order.  Ones I like.  Great ones.  Best ones.  Well, ones with a lot of words and pictures that took so much work to put together in the first place that maybe if someone reads them this time I’ll feel a little better about it.

On the merits, this post full of words and pictures (and captions on the pictures — do you …. people … pay no attention at all?!) should have caused a societal sensation when it was first published on May 4, 2010.  Inexplicably, it didn’t.  This is your second chance, society. 

Coca-Cola Host of the Highways

Commuter Host

Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process  seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy:

Wagner's Coca Cola SignWhatever the criticisms might be to the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion, including those detailed by our friends Ron ColemanMarty Schwimmer, and Eric Goldman, in the context of keyword advertising, the road-side restaurant sign shown [at left] definitely is “the real thing” for purposes of trademark initial interest confusion, in more ways than one:

It does depict the Coca-Cola brand, in all its glory, after all, so It’s The Real Thing, by definition.

And, unlike the very hypothetical scenario relied upon in the Wolf Appliance case, the above drive-in restaurant signage is real world and in current use, designed to attract attention, and has been for years, in fact, well after the business responsible for the sign dropped Coca-Cola for Pepsi. That’s right, “no Coke, Pepsi.” To twist Sean Penn’s words in I Am Sam, Wagner’s change was a “very bad choice,” at least in my humble opinion of taste.

Yeah, me too.  I used to think I liked Pepsi better.  Crazy!  It’s one more reason Steve and I are likethis.  More:

Last, it certainly is a good example of the Initial Interest Confusion doctrine at work.

Uh oh.  Like the old “Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead” story, I’m afraid this sincere run at resuscitating initial interest confusion is a grave error.  For now Steve would take us from the brand-laden anecdote and the cultural mix-and-match moment to — as if  he were a judge in a Lanham Act case! (some day, I’m sure!) — slapping some poor sap with legal liability over what’s probably just laziness, business logic or a little bit of both.  Here’s his real-life tale of interest, initially and heartbreakingly confused:

Minneapolis drivers on Highway 81 pull off the road for a great cheeseburger and a refreshing Coca-Cola, or in my case, Diet Coke. Only to find that there is no Diet Coke, or any Coca-Cola products for that matter, only Pepsi products. Drivers likely aren’t confused at the point of purchase, however, since the menu and interior soda fountain signage refer to Pepsi not Coke. Nevertheless, the exterior sign no doubt has steered more than a few thirsty types off the road over the years to end up purchasing Pepsi products, not Coca-Cola products.

Not me, however, I’m not even initially confused any longer, just annoyed with the change, and deciding with each visit, well in advance, to enjoy a chocolate malt instead of a soft drink, since I can’t have the real thing any longer at Wagner’s Drive-In II.

I’m not the first to say that, unlike a refreshing Coca-Cola® brand soft drink beverage product, this “detour of doom” argument leaves me flat.

Coca-Cola Sign of Good Taste

Lord, just show me a sign!

Read More…

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.