What Brown can do to you

Go figure:

United Parcel Service Inc., the world’s largest package-delivery company, sued a lawyer in Lakewood, N.J., for trademark infringement.

Samuel Z. Brown, of The Law Offices of Samuel Z. Brown, infringed the parcel-delivery service’s various “Brown” trademarks, the company claims in its complaint filed March 19 in New York federal court.

UPS objects to Brown’s Web site, www.sambrownlaw.com, and his uses of the phrase “See What Brown Can Do for You,” and his “Brown Engine” that performs a “See What Brown Can Find for You” search function.

A lawyer, yet! Can you sue yourself for malpractice?

On the other hand, is there really LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION here? The provision of legal services is surely not likely to be confused with freight shipping. Is it dilution, then? If so, are these really famous marks?

All academic questions, I am sure.

UPDATE:  The case was settled, PACER reveals.  It seems that last March, U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa denied Mr. Brown’s not unreasonable, if overly optimistic, motion to ship the case and its no fewer than ten causes of action to the nearby District of New Jersey.  Mr. Brown’s unexpected counterstroke, threatening as it did to kick the legs out from under UPS’s ability to focus maximum litigation firepower on the Sam Brown threat, was skillfully beaten back by the crack team at national powerhouse King & Spalding, drawing on contributions from both its Atlanta and New York offices.  Their efforts, to the surprise of no one, bore fruit, leaving the stunned Brown team (uh, sorry UPS) reeling and with little choice but to sue for peace.

Putting the snark aside briefly, at the end of the day, I suppose the dilution claim was irresistible here; confusion could never be proved, but dilution, well, we no longer ask for hardly any proof of anything at all as long as your mark is famous (and yes, I’d guess these are).

Sam Brown folded:  His website no longer says, “See What Brown Can Do for You.”

What Brown Can Do To You

But was this no more than a Pyhrric victory for the Men in Brown?  PACER also hints, if only by the tense stillness of nearly six months of docket silence, at a tale of epic struggle whose details–wrapped as neatly as a UPS-regulation parcel by what must be a confidential settlement agreement–will never be known.  No papers were filed between the dramatic venue motion that was Sam Brown’s Waterloo and the coupe de grace that must have been administered in private before the simple stipulation of settlement was filed only last August.

The cause of the un-UPS-like delay in delivering the expected package?  We’ll never know — but the damage, surely, has been done.  Damn you trademark diluters!  Damn you!

email

Tags: , ,

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Evan Brown - May 12, 2010

    Enjoyed @roncoleman's telling of this epic tale of UPS trademark zeal: http://is.gd/c5FGe

  2. A bunch of WHARTON business | LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® - August 16, 2013

    […] We could go on.  And I will:  I remember well the 1980′s, when — perhaps thanks to cultural phenomena such as The Preppy Handbook and Risky Business — the Princeton brand became very, very valuable. And even as a lad, spending the second half of my childhood growing up within ten miles of Princeton, I was cognizant of how things that used to just be things in Mercer County, and had names referring to where they actually were (places like Plainsboro and Hightstown), were now becoming “Princeton” things.  Housing developments, shopping centers, laundromats — Princeton East, Princeton West, Princeton Landing, etc.   And I figured out, callow future trademark lawyer as I was, that probably Old Nassau (well, it was not Old Nassau to me yet, but allow me the anachronism) couldn’t do much about it because, as the New York Times puts it,  ”place names cannot be trademarked.”  Neither can colors, of course — sorry, Brown! […]