NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0459n.06 F iled: Jun e 29, 2007 Case No. 05- 3753 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT THE B ASKETBALL MARKETING COMP ANY, INC ., e t al

. P lai nt iffs- App e lle e s,

v. UP SCALE E NTERTAINMENT AND MARK ETING G ROUP , e t al

. De fend ant s- App e lla nt s.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O

BEF ORE: RYAN , BA TC HELD ER , a nd SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M . BATCHEL DER, Circuit Ju dge. Defen dan t FX Di git al M edi a, I nc. (“FX Di g ita l” ) app e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f T he B a sk e tba ll Mark e tin gCom

pa ny , Inc . a nd B MC Play e rs , I nc . (c oll e c tiv e ly “ An d 1” or “ Pla int if fs ” ) o n Pl a int if

fs ’ claim of tra demar

k infring ement under

the L anham Ac t, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Pla int if fs own a nd op erat e the “ An d 1 Mix Ta pe To ur ,” wh ic h is a

highly pr of ita ble nationwide ser ies of exhibiti on basketba ll games. In conne ct i on with these ente rprises, Plaintiffs

own s i x fe d er al l y reg istered tra demar ks, including the “And 1” name, the “ And 1” log o, and the “And 1 Mix Tape.” On D ecem b er 7 , 2 002, L isa Thomas (“ Thomas”) , owner and oper ator of Upsca le Enterta inment an d M ar k etingGroup (“ Upsca le”) , org anized and promoted a n exhibi tion ba sk e tba ll g ame in S t. L ou is, Mis so ur i, whic h s he a dv e rt ise d a s “ Th e Str e e ba ll L e g e nd s AN D 1 MixIn a d d iti o n to the c la im fo r v io la tio n o f t h e L a n h a m A c t, the P la intiff s ra ise d six o the r c la im s in th is a c tio n . 1 T h e di s t r i ct c ou r t g r an t ed s u mmar y j u dg men t i n f av or of t h e Pl ai n t i f

f s on t h e cl ai ms br ou g h t u n der t h e O h i o c ommon l aw of t r ade mar k i n f

r i n g eme n t a n d t h e O h i o D ec ept i v e T r ade Pr ac t i ce s Act ( “ O D T PA ”) , O h i o Rev

. Code § 4165. 02, and dis m i ss ed t he rema i ni ng cl ai m s wi t h prejud i ce af t er deter m i ni ng t hat P l ai nt i f f s had ab and o ned t hem

. O nl y t he ju d g m e n t o n the L a n h a m A c t cla im is ch a llen g e d in this a p p e a l.

T he d i st ri ct co urt ref

used t o grant s um m ary judgm ent agai nst W o o d ruf f i n hi s i nd i vi d ual cap aci t y , and 2 P la intiff s e v e n tua lly d ism isse d him fro m the su it. 2 Tape Tour B asketba ll Ga m e. ” Upsca le contra cted with F X Dig ital to provide And 1-a ffiliated play ers f or the g ame a

nd to print 20,000 fly ers s t at i n g that the eve nt “fe atur[ed] play ers f rom the AN D 1 Mix Ta

pe s[.]” Ne ith e r U

ps c a le no r F X Dig ita l re qu e ste d Plai nti ff s’ pe rm iss ion

to u se the ir trade marks, even though the President of F X Dig ital, Colum bus Woodruff (“ Woodruff”) , assumed Plaintiffs owned a tra demar k on “And 1” and its corr espondinglogo. Plaintiffs filed suit ag ainst Upscale , Thomas, FXDig ital, and Woodruff, alleg ing f eder al trade mark infr inge ment under the L anham Ac t, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The dist ri ct co urt g rante d 1 Pla int if fs ’ m oti on

fo r s umm a

ry jud g me nt a g a i n s t U p s c a l e , T ho ma s, and

F X D ig ita l and

or de re d th e se thr e e de fe nd ants to p ay

$4 0, 00 0 in dama g e s, $2 8, 54 1. 50 in atto rn e y s’ fe e s, and $4 ,3 38 .6 1 in

c os ts. 2 FX D igital obtained leave to f ile a late notice of appea l a nd broug ht this appea l, c halleng ing both the findingof infring ement and the awa rd of damag es and a

ttorney s’ fe es. No other

party appea led. The district cour

t thoroug hly

revie wed Plaintiffs’ c laim of trade mark infring ement and the law g overningthat claim. The c ourt conc luded that Plaintiffs owned a valid reg istered tra demar k and h a d c o n ti nu o u s ly u s e d th e tr a d e ma r k , an d th at F X D ig it a l’ s u s e o f th e tr a d e ma r k cre ated a likelihood of confusion re g ardingthe s ponsorship of the De cembe r 7th Event. I n deter mining that

a lik e lih oo d o f c on fu sio n e xiste d, the c ou rt carefully c on sid e re d a

nd we ig he d th e e ig ht Frisch fac tors, see Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v . Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, I

nc. , 6 70 F .2 d 6 42 , 64 8 ( 6th Cir. 1982), and de termined that the f actor s weighed heavily in favor of Plaintiffs’ cla im of tradema rk3

inf ri ng e me nt. Th e c ourt g ra nte d summa

ry jud g me nt to t

he Pla int if

fs , h old ingthat th e De fe nd ants ha d in fa c t in fri nged th e mark s and c a lc ulatin gthe $4 0, 00 0 d ama g e s f igur e ba se d o n th e pr of

its

e arn e d b y Up sc a le fr om i ts i nf

ri ng ingus e of

Pla int if fs ’ t ra de mark s. Af t er care fu l l y re v i ew i n g th e r ec o rd , th e ap p l i cab l e l aw , an d th e p art i es ’ b ri ef

s (ora l arg ument

was wa ived in thi s ca s e) , we are convince d that the district court did not err in its conclusion that Plaintiffs were entitled to summar y judgme nt on their fede ral tra demar k infring ement cla im. The evidenc e is undisputed t h at FX Dig ital printed 20,000 fly ers statingthat the Dec ember 7th Event would “fe atur[e] play ers f rom the And 1 Mix Tapes,” and that thi s u s e of the “And 1 Mix Tape” tr a de mark

wa s n ot a uth or ize d b y Pla int if

fs . F X D ig ita l pr od

uc e d n o e vid e nc e su g g e sti ngthat th e se fl y e rs wo uld

no t c re ate a

lik e lih oo d o f c on fu sio n th at Pla int if fs we re the so ur c e of the De c e mbe r 7 th Ev e nt. FX Digital argues t hat i t did not willfully infring e on Plaintiffs’ trade marks and theref ore the district court e rre d in awar ding $40,000 in damag es. B eca use “the re is no express re quirement that the . . . infring er w illfully infring e the tra de[mark] to justify an aw ard of profits,” W

ynn Oil Co. v. Am. W ay Serv . Corp. , 9 4 3 F. 2 d 5 9 5 , 6 0 7 (6 thC i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Roulo v. Russ Berrie &Co. , 886 F .2 d 9 31 , 9 41 (7 th C ir . 1 98 9) ) w e fi nd no erro r in the awa rd of dama g e s b a se d o n th e inf ri ng e rs ’ pr of its . N or do we fi nd

e rr or in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ho ldi ngthat F X Di g ita l is joi ntl y and se ve ra lly liable for the profits ea

rned by Upsca le and Thoma s. See Cos te llo Publ is hi ng Co

. v . R ote lle , 670 F .2 d 103 5, 10 43 (D .C. Cir . 198 1) (“ Sin c e joi nt t or tf e a so rs are joi ntl y

and se ve ra lly lia ble , th e vic tim of trade mark infr inge ment may sue as many or as f ew of the alleg ed wr ong doers a s he choose s.”). As the district court’ s opinion care fully and cor rec tly sets out the law g overningthe issues raised, a nd clea rly articulates the re asons under lying its de cision, issuance of a full written opinion4

by this court would be lar g ely superf luous a nd serve no useful purpose . Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM for the r easons state d in the district court’s opinion.