## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2928 E AS T LA ND M US I C G R OUP, LLC, a nd R A Y NA R L DO W HIT TY, P laint if fs -App el lants , v.
L IONS GATE E NT ERT AI NME NT, I NC .; S UMM IT E NT ERT AI NME NT, LLC; a nd M ANDA TE P ICT URES, LL C, D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 11 C8224

— George W. Lindberg, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 6, 2012

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 21, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chief Judge, a nd F LA UM a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, C hie

f Judg e . E as tla n d M u sic G ro u p is th e pr o pr i et o r o fthe r ap duo Ph i fty
- 50 , whi ch, a cc o r di ng to i ts web site w ww . phi fty
- 50
. co m , ha s to i ts c r edi t o ne2 N o. 12

- 2928 album ( 2003 ) and a T- shi rt
. Eastl and M usi c has re gi st e r e d “ PHI F TY

- 5 0 ” a s a t r a de mar k

. I t a l s o c l a i m s a tr ade m ar ki n “ 50 /50 ” a nd c o nt en ds th atLi o ns g at e Enter tai nm ent a nd S um m i t Enter tai nm ent i nfr i nged i ts rights by u sing “50/50 ” as th e titl e of a m otion pictu re that opened i n 201 1. The d istr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the co m pla i nt under Fed. R. Ci v. P
. 12( b) ( 6) , ruli ng the m ovi e’ s t i tl e desc ri pti ve b ec au se th e film co n c er n s a 50 % ch an c e o f th e m ain c h ar ac te r su rv i v i n g ca n c er . 201 2 U .S. D ist . L EXIS10 0310 (N .D . I ll. Ju ly 1 9, 20 12 ). E as tla n d M u s i c p ro te st s t h at th is i s a def ense, notan e l em ent o fthe cl ai m , and that be ca us e th e m o vi e i s no t part ofthe c o m pl ai ntthe m o ti o n t o di smi ss s ho ul d ha ve b ee n h an dl ed as one for su m m ar y jud gm en t. Se e R u le 1 2(d ). E as tla n d M u sic tel l s us that, had the com pla i nt sur vi ved a m otion to d ism iss, i t w ou ld h ave serv ed exte ns ive discov ery r e q u es ts , an d it se em s c on fid en t t h at d efe n d an ts w ou ld have set tl ed ra therthan bor ne the expense ofco m pli ance. Cou ns elwas s ur pr i se d whenr em inded, a t o r ala r g um en t, t ha t a mot i o n f o r s ummar y j ud g men tcan prece de dis cove ry ( see Rule 56 ( b) , al low i ng a m oti on t o be filed “atany ti m e”) , l eavi ng the adver se partywith an o bl i gat i on t o show a need f ordi scover y under Rule 56( d). S ee P eters v. West, 69 2 F
. 3d 629 ( 7t h C i r. 20 12) (resolvi ng a cop yright su it i n ad van ce of discove ry). W hethera docum ent t o w hi ch a com p lai nt r efer s ( here , th e m o vi e) i s tr ea te d a s par t o fthe c o m pl ai nt f o r the pu rpos e o f Ru l e 1 2 ( d) ha s b e e n a di f fi c ul t qu e s t i o n, se e B row nm a rk F ilm s, LL C v. C o m edy P a rtners , 68 2 F
. 3d 687,N o. 12

- 2928 3 690– 91 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) , but on e w e nee d not t ackl e. N or ne ed we d e c i d e wh e t h e r t o f o l l o w Roge rs v. Gr i m al di, 87 5 F. 2d 994, 99 9 (2d C ir. 19 89) , under wh i ch the ti tl e o f an art ist ic w or k c an infr in ge a t r a d e m a rk on ly if it is dev o i d o fa r ti st i c si g ni fi ca nc e o r e xpl i ci tl y misl eadi ng about the wo rk ’s s ourc e. R o gers tr eat ed that doctr i ne as ana pp li catio n o fthe fi r sta m en dm en t r athe r tha n the Lan ha m Act, a nd c o ur ts s ho ul d a vo i d unn ec es sa ry c o nst i tu ti o na l a dj udi ca ti o n. I t i s unneces sar y to consi der pos sibl e co nsti tuti onal defe nses to tr adem ar k enf or cem ent, j ust a s i t i s unneces sar y t o decid e w hetherthe dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have conve rt ed the m oti on to o ne f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, because thi s co m pla i nt f ai l s a t the thr esho ld : it does not al l eg e th atthe us e o f“ 50 /50 ” as a t i tl e ha s caus ed an y confusi on about the fi l m ’ s s ourc e

— and any such a l l ega tion w oul d be t oo i m pla usibl e t o supp or t co stl y l i ti gati on. S ee Ash crof

tv. Iq b al , 556 U .S. 66 2 (2 00 9); B el l A tl antic C orp. v . Tw om bly, 55 0 U.S

. 54 4 ( 2007 )

. A t o ra l ar gum ent, pla i nti f f s’ co unsel co nceded that no t a si ngl e per son has e vercon ta c te d Eastl and or i ts w eb s i te to see k a copy o fthe fi l m o r c om p l ai n abo ut the fi l m ’ s co ntents or quali ty. N ordoes the com pla i nt a lleg e that a ny pote nti al custo m erhas turned t o Lion sg at e orS um m i t i n quest of th e rap duo’ s pro du cts. Counsel f orpl ai nti f f s a l so to ld us thatno surve y has bee n done. I fthe acc us ed fi l m bo r e th e ti tl e “P hi fty
- 50 ”, a l l eg at i o ns ofco nfusi on o r secon dary m eani ng co uld be o m i tte d from the c o m pl ai nt
. Ea st l an d M us i c’ s r eg i st er ed m ar k ha s be co m e i nc o nt es table, 1 5 U. S

. C. § 10 65 , tho ug h i nc o n-4 N o. 12

- 2928
t e s t a b l e ma r k s a r e s ubj e c tt o c e r t a i n de f e nses. 15 U. S

. C. §111 5( b). T h e ti tl e “ 50/50” diff er s fro m the m ar k “ Phifty50”, however ; o nl y the l att er is re gi ste re d

— an d the pri nci pal r eas on i t was r egi str ablei s that iti s a m ade

- up hom op hon e of a f am il iar p hra se, w hich i n ord inary us ag e i s su g g es tive o r de sc r i pti ve . I t ta k es a po wer ful sh o w ing ofa ss o ci at i o n b et wee n s ucha n e xpr es si o n a nd a parti cul ar producer of goo ds to est abl i sh a tradem ar k c laim

— and Eastl and M usi c has not att em pted such a showing. The phrase 50/50 ora sound-al i ke va ria nt ( 50- 50, fi ftyfi fty, fi fty/fi fty) has bee n i n use a s the ti tl e o fi ntel l ectual p r o p e r t y f o r a l o n g t i me . Wi k i p e di a l i s t s e i g h tfi l ms w i th t h at ti tl e, o pening i n 191 6, 19 25, 19 72, 19 81, 19 82, 19 92 , 200 4, an d 2 0 11 . See h tt p ://en .w ikip ed ia.or g/ w iki/ 50/50. Si x ofthes e m ovi es predate Eastl and M usi c’ s use . T h e 1 98 2 f i l m i s b y a n d ab ou t a roc k b an d . W ikip ed ia li sts th ree TV show s w ith th at titl e , p lu s an ep isode of a fou rt h sh ow . I t a lso l ist s t h re e s on gs w h os e t itle s c on ta in th e phr as e 5 0/50
. One ofthe se i s F r an kZa ppa’ s 19 73 s o ng “50/50 ”. Then ther e’ s “ 50/50 Lu v” r el eas ed i n 199 5 by th e rap group B.G

. K noc c O ut& Dres ta. A nd W iki p ed ia’s l i st i s no t co m pr eh en si ve , f o r i t o m i ts a ny th i ngb y the rap du o Ph ifty-50; d ou btle s s o th er exa m p les al so are m i ssi ng. I f there i s a ny pro spect ofi ntel l ectualpro perty i n the phrase 50/50, Eastlan d M usi c i s a very j unio r u s e r a n d i n n o p o s i t i o n t o co mpl a i n ab o u tth e 2 0 1 1 fi l m. Ph ifty-50 e n t e r ed a crow d ed fiel d , and i ts rights are cor re spondingl y weak and narr ow. Se e 2 M cCar t hy on Trad e m arks an d Unfai rCom pe t i t i on § § 1 1
. 8 5

– . 8 7( 4 th ed

. 2012).N o. 12

- 2928 5 The ti tl e o fa w or k o fi ntel l ectualpro perty c an i nfr i nge anothe r author ’ s m ar k onl y i f the ti tl e f al sel y i m p lies th at th e latt er au th or is its orig in
. D astarC orp. v. Tw ent ie th Cen t ury F ox F i l m Corp. , 53 9 U.S

. 23 (2 003)

. The ti tl es of T r u m an C ap ot e’s n ov ella Breakfastat Tif fany’s , a nd the m ovi e o fthe sam e nam e, do not i nfr i nge the r i ghts ofTi f fan y & Co. bec ause no r eas onabl e r eader o r m o vi eg o erthi nk s tha t th e j ewe l eri s th e so ur ce o fthe b oo k or th e m ov ie. (W e d o n ot co n sid er th e p os sib ility ofrel iefun d er dilution statu tes.) D as t arhel d that tr adem ar k l aw cannotbe used t o obt ai n ri ghts ove r the c onte nt o fan arti sti c work; thatwould am ount t o an i nd efi ni te extensi on o fa copyr i ght. Ti tl es o f so ngs and m ovi es cannot be c opyr i ghted ( see P eters , 62 9 F
. 3d at 63 5– 36 ; 37 C .F.R . §20 2.1 (a)) ; D as t arte l l s us not to use tr adem ar k l aw to achi eve wh at copyr i ght l aw f or bi ds. O nly a c o nfu sion abou t ori gin su p p orts a trad em ark cl ai m , and “o ri gi n” f orthi s purpose m eans the “ producer of the ta n g ib le p rod uc t sold in the m arketp lace.” 539 U

. S. at 31
. E as tla n d M u sic ’s com p lain t d oe s no t (an d c o u ld no t pl au sibl y ) al l eg e th atc o ns um er s tr ea t i t as the producer ors ou rc e ofthe fi l m 50 /5 0, o r tr eatLi onsg ate a s th e p r o d u c e r o fth e 2 0 0 3 r a p a lb u m. A FFI RMED

2- 21- 13