Source: http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/2010/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:49:43+00:00

Document:
I previously blogged (link here) about the trademark infringement lawsuit brought by automotive parts retailer AutoZone against Illinois businessman, Michael Strick, doing business under the service marks Oil Zone and Wash Zone. The Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s decision finding no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law between the AUTOZONE mark and Strick’s use of OILZONE and WASHZONE. See AutoZone, Inc. et al v. Strick et al., Appeal No. 07-2136 (7th Cir. September 11, 2008). The decision sent the case back the lower court for trial.
After a bench trial was held on November 2 and 3, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge John Darrah on March 8, 2010, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law which rule in favor of Strick and against AutoZone. The court concluded that Strick's use of the OIL ZONE and WASH ZONE names and marks was not likely to cause consumer confusion with AutoZone’s mark, and, in the alternative, AutoZone’s lawsuit was barred the doctrine of laches. See AutoZone, Inc. et al v. Strick, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21928, Case No. 03-cv-8152 (N.D. Ill. March 8, 2010).
Because there was no issue regarding the protectibiliyt of AutoZone’s marks, the decision came down to likelihood of confusion. The court went through an analysis of the seven likelihood of confusion factors set forth in CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Engineering, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2001).
Furthermore, confusion between the marks is even less likely when the marks are considered in the physical retail context in which they are displayed by the parties and perceived by the consumer. Specifically, the exterior appearance of the Oil Zone facilities significantly diminishes the probability of consumer confusion by associating either location with AutoZone. The Wheaton Oil Zone location is a simple concrete building with a green Oil Zone sign. The Naperville Oil Zone/Wash Zone location is a white building with a blue roof. Neither has an appearance even slightly resembling a typical AutoZone store, which has the standardized, uniform look consistent with a retail store operated as part of a nationwide chain. In contrast, the Oil Zone locations present the appearance of two small, independent businesses, not associated with any national commercial entity.
Regarding similarity of the products and/or services offered, while the businesses may generally relate to care and maintenance of automobiles, the court found that Oil Zone and Wash Zone primarily provide automotive services while AutoZone primarily sells automotive products. The court rejected as unsupported by any evidence AutoZone’s claims that consumers would believe these are service-only centers of AutoZone.
Regarding the “area and manner of concurrent use” factor, the court found differences in the customer bases of the two businesses (65% of Strick's customers are women while 20% of AutoZone customers are women; AutoZone has a very high percentage of DIY customers while Strick’s facilities provide basic automobile maintenance services to automobile owners). The court also noted that AutoZone customers generally seek to purchase products for use by the customer in performing maintenance and repair on an automobile whereas Oil Zone/Wash Zone customers are seeking to purchase both the part and the installation and repair or maintenance service. The court also found that the physical appearance of the interior of Strick's facilities make it unlikely that a consumer would believe that the business sold auto parts. Similarly, the typical AutoZone store is a retail facility with large glass windows but no car bays with an interior that contains aisles of shelves stocked with automobile parts and accessories. The court also noted that there is no significant concurrent use of the marks in advertising because AutoZone’s ads are mostly nationwide through television, radio, newspapers, and sponsorship of professional teams, while Strick’s primary means of advertising is through direct mail -- a method not used extensively by AutoZone.This factor favored no likelihood of confusion.
Weighing all of the factors above, the court found that AutoZone had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Strick's use of the OIL ZONE and WASH ZONE marks were likely to cause confusion among consumers (finding that only the strength of the mark weighed in favor of AutoZone, which was significantly outweighed by the dissimilarity of the marks and the products and services offered by the parties).
The court also addressed Strick’s alternative argument that the doctrine of laches bars AutoZone's claims. AutoZone became aware of Strick's use of OIL ZONE and WASH ZONE in December 1998, but did nto contact Strick until a cease and desist letter was sent in February 2003. This four year delay was outside the three-year statute of limitations found in the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/10a(e), and therefore, there was a presumption of unreasonable delay applied.
AutoZone attempted to argue that its delay was not unreasonable and was excusable due to AutoZone's other ongoing enforcement actions between 1998 and 2003 (even having in-house counsel testify regarding AutoZone’s procedures for monitoring and prioritizing trademark enforcement actions). But the court shot down AutoZone quite directly stating “It is clear that the actual reason AutoZone did not pursue this case in a reasonably timely manner was not that it was too busy with other enforcement actions but, rather, that for whatever reason, it gave the case file no attention for nearly four years. This does not excuse AutoZone's delay. Therefore, AutoZone has not overcome the presumption that its four-year delay was unreasonable.” (footnote omitted).
After determining unreasonable delay, the court turned to the question of whether Strick has shown prejudice due to AutoZone's inaction. While AutoZone tried to argue that Strick had presented no concrete evidence that he has built up good will or customer loyalty over the last four years, the court rejected the need for such evidence in showing prejudice: “It is undisputed that Strick spent four years and a substantial sum promoting the Oil Zone name. Forcing him to change that name now would obviously cause a loss in terms of both time and money. Thus, Strick has shown that he has been prejudiced by AutoZone's delay.” While AutoZone argued that that Strick had not shown that he relied on AutoZone's delay and that AutoZone's action induced Strick to adversely change his position, the court rejected the argument that such a showing was required (citing recent Seven Circuit case law) and held that Strick did not need to make any further showing with respect to prejudice.
Accordingly, the court held that AutoZone unreasonably delayed in bringing this suit, and Strick would be prejudiced by allowing AutoZone to now assert its rights and applied the doctrine of laches to bar AutoZone’s lawsuit.
On March 4, 2010, Who Dat? Inc. (“WDI”) filed a lawsuit against the NFL, the New Orleans Saints, the Louisiana Secretary of State and the State of Louisiana. See Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties, LLC et al, Case No. 10-cv-00154 (M. D. La. March 4, 2010). A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here (or here). Other press coverage here, here and here.
Who Dat?, Inc. developed and nurtured “WHO DAT” for over twenty-five years and was uniquely positioned to reap substantial financial rewards in connection with the 2009-2010 National Football League season. On the eve of that success, NFLP and the Saints filed public documents falsely claiming ownership and first use of the phrase. As anyone would have anticipated, the public voiced outrage and State of Louisiana officials publically challenged the claims made by the NFLP and Saints. Since those entities were not the first users of the phrase and had no standing to make the claims made, they publically conceded that they did not own the phrase. With that concession in hand, state officials declared victory and further declared that the phrase belongs to the people as it is in the public domain. As a natural consequence of these actions, Who Dat?, Inc. was not able to obtain the financial fruits of its labor.
Interestingly, while several Louisiana state trademark registrations are noted throughout the complaint as evidence of WDI’s trademark rights, WDI had very few federal registrations to evidence its trademark rights. One was for soft drinks, but it has since been canceled (the 5 year statement of use was not filed). Another was for the mark WHO DAT BLUE BAND, but as noted in the complaint, this was registered by a third party in 2004, and only assigned to WDI in December 2009 in order to resolve a cancellation proceeding filed by WDI.
WDI had several other intent-to-use trademark applications pending, but each went abandoned for lack of any Statement of Use, including two applications for clothing (here and here) and two applications for potato chips (here and here) – all filed on the basis of intent-to-use and all went abandoned after no Statement of Use was filed. One additional use-in-commerce application for bumper stickers went abandoned after failing to respond to an office action.
More recently, WDI filed another use-in-commerce application for WHO DAT on January 7, 2010, covering musical sound recordings and various clothing items (claiming date of first use going back to October 1983). Unfortunately, WDI’s application to register the mark for its clothing goods will inevitably be suspended pending the outcome of two earlier filed applications for WHO DAT (currently allowed and awaiting a Statement of Use from the applicant and WHO DAT' JE CROIS.
One has to wonder why WDI did not follow through with its federal trademark registrations for clothing if, as stated in the complaint, it was licensing the mark to third parties for use in connection with shirts and other products. It certainly recognized the importance of seeking federal registrations – as evidenced by its prior applications. And while it’s not clear how WDI may have sold its goods throughout the years, it currently sells its goods through the website – whodatstuff.com – a domain name registered on August 13, 2009.
The situation serves as lesson that a trademark is only as good as its ability to serve as a unique source identifier for a particular source of goods or services. Just because you come up with a unique phrase does not mean that you have any exclusive rights to the term to the extent you are not actually using it in a manner that would be recognized as a source identifier in connection with particular goods and services. As for WDI, it's one thing to talk about having created a unique term or phrase – its quite another to have the evidence to show that it has always served as a unique identifier for WDI's goods and services. We shall see.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal clarified last week that creditors seeking to attach writ of executions against domain names in order to satisfy outstanding judgments can do so by levying the domain names through a court appointed receiver in a jurisdiction where either the domain name registrar or registry is located. See Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, No. 07-16788 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2010). Seattle Trademark Lawyer and Technology & Marketing Law Blog both have detailed posts on the court’s decision.
Basically, the Ninth Circuit upheld its prior decision in Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) that domain names are intangible property which can subject to a writ of execution. One important nuance highlighed by the court's decision is that while domain names cannot be subject to a turnover order under California law because they cannot be taken into custody, a domain name can be transferred to an appointed receiver who can then sell the domain name in order to satisfy a judgment.
Moreover, based on the sections of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act that allow for in rem actions to be filed against domain names in either the jurisdiction of the registrar or the registry, the court further concluded that under California law domain names are located where the registry is located for the purpose of asserting quasi in rem jurisdiction (so-called “attachment jurisdiction” because the jurisdiction establishes ownership of property in a dispute unrelated to the property – in thiscase, the original lawsuit brought by Office Depot for cybersquatting against Zuccarini involved a single domain name and resulted in a judgment that Office Depot then sought to satisfy by going after other domain names owned by Zuccarini).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.