Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/396599232/Nirvana-v-Marc-Jacobs
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 04:00:17
Document Index: 85692428

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1125', '§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 101', '§ 106', '§ 502', '§ 1125', '§\n1125', '§\n1116']

Nirvana v. Marc Jacobs | Nirvana (Band) | Copyright Infringement
Nirvana is suing Marc Jacobs for copyright infringement over the smiley face logo on Jacobs' "Grunge Redux Collection," released in November 2018.
speichernNirvana v. Marc Jacobs für später speichern
Business Model for Netflix
Acne ( PDFDrive.com ).pdf
English Pre-Intermediate Reading Comprehension Test 001_1
technology essay 1
cassino instrument 52 2013032154 03152013 agr 9 pages jpmorgan chase settlement with cassino
ELC - Assignment Cover Sheet.docx
Case 2:18-cv-10743
Filed 12/28/18
MARK S. LEE (SBN: 94103)
mark.lee@rimonlaw.com
Telephone/Facsimile: 213.375.3811
Kendra L. Orr (SBN: 256729)
Kendra.orr@rimonlaw.com RIMON, P.C.
Telephone/Facsimile: 415.683.5472
Attorneys for Plaintiffs NIRVANA L.L.C.
NIRVANA L.L.C., a Washington
MARK JACOBS INTERNATIONAL LL.C., a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; SAKS INCORPORATED,
d/b/a SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, a Tennessee Corporation; NEIMAN
MARCUS GROUP LIMITED, L.LC., a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 10,
(1) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq.); (2) FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN UNDER THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) et seq.); (3) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW; AND (4) UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW.
Plaintiff Nirvana L.L.C. (“Nirvana”), for its Complaint against defendants
Marc Jacobs International L.L.C. (“Marc Jacobs”), Saks Incorporated, doing
business as Saks Fifth Avenue (“Saks”), Neiman Marcus Group Limited (“Neiman
Marcus”), and Does 1 through 10, alleges as follows:
1. Defendants have infringed Nirvana’s copyright, misleadingly used
Nirvana’s common law trademarks, and utilized other elements with which Nirvana
is widely associated to make it appear that Nirvana has endorsed or is otherwise
associated with Defendant Marc Jacobs’ “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection of clothing it is selling to the public when, in fact, Nirvana has not done so and is not so associated. Defendants Saks and Neiman Marcus are currently selling Marc Jacobs’ infringing products in their stores throughout the United States. Nirvana seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm Defendants’ actions have caused, and injunctive relief to stop Defendants’ infringing conduct. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This is a civil action arising under the copyright and trademark laws of
the United States and the statutory and common laws of the State of California.
This Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), as well as supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted herein.
3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(a)
in that, inter alia, Plaintiffs and Defendants may be found in this district and a substantial portion of the events described took place in this district. THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Nirvana is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a
Washington limited liability that does business in this District.
5. Defendant Marc Jacobs is a Delaware limited liability company that
does business in this District.
6. Defendant Saks is a Tennessee corporation that does business in and
has a retail store in this District.
7. Defendant Neiman Marcus is a Delaware limited liability company that
does business and has a retail store in this District.
8. Does 1 -10, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names because
their true names and capacities are unknown at this time. The complaint will be
amended appropriately when their names and capacities are ascertained.
9. On information and belief, Nirvana alleges that each of such fictitiously
named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein.
10. Defendants Marc Jacobs, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Does 1-10 are
collectively referred to as the “Defendants” hereafter.
11. Defendants, and each of them are individuals and business entities who,
upon information and belief, are acting in concert and active participation with each
other in committing the wrongful acts alleged herein.
12. Nirvana is one of the most famous and influential rock bands in history.
According to Rolling Stone’s artist biography, “Few bands in rock history have had
a more immediate and tangible impact on their contemporary pop musical landscape
than Nirvana did in the early Nineties[,]” almost single-handedly popularizing the
“alternative rock” and “grunge” musical genres with which they became widely
associated. (http://rollingstone.com/music/artists/nirvana/biography). Nirvana is
one of the best-selling rock bands of all time, with more than 75 million records sold
worldwide, and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2014. All of
their albums have received awards and accolades. For example, Nirvana’s second
album Nevermind was named the top album of the 1990s by both Rolling Stone and
Time magazines, while The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum ranked Nevermind
number 10 on its “The Definitive 200 Albums of All Time” list in 2007. In 2002,
NME awarded the first single from Nevermind, “Smells Like Team Spirit,” the
number two spot on its list of “100 Greatest Singles of All Time”, while VH1 placed
“Smells Like Teen Spirit” at number one on its list of “100 Greatest Songs of the
Past 25 Years” in 2003. In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked “Smells Like Teen Spirit”
ninth on its list of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.”
13. Among the copyrighted works owned by Nirvana is a “Smiley Face”
design and logo, Copyright Registration No. VA0000564166, created by Kurt
Cobain in about 1991 and registered for copyright in 1993. A true and correct copy
of Nirvana’s copyright registration for that design and logo, together with a deposit
copy of the registered images, is attached as Exhibit 1.
14. Nirvana’s “Smiley Face” logo was first licensed in 1992.
Representations of that copyrighted and licensed “Smiley Face” design and logo are
15. Nirvana has used that copyrighted design and logo continuously since
1992 to identify its music and licensed merchandise. It has licensed its copyrighted
logo on literally dozens of different t-shirts, shirts, hats, hoodies, bags, backpacks,
glasses, wallets, and other items of merchandise, many of which have sold
extensively for decades, both with and without use of the “Nirvana” mark adjacent
to the Smiley Face design and logo. Exemplar uses, beginning with the first use on
a poster advising of release party for Nirvana’s Nevermind, album, are set forth
16. Through Nirvana’s more than 25-years of use of its copyrighted
“Smiley Face” design and logo to identify its services and merchandise, that design
and logo has become widely associated with and identifies Nirvana as the source of
the goods and services that bear it in the minds of the consuming public. Further,
through that extensive use, that design and logo has come to symbolize the goodwill
associated with Nirvana to a significant portion of the consuming public, which
assumes that all goods or services that bear the logo are endorsed by or associated
DEFENDANTS’ WRONGFUL CONDUCT
17. In or about November 2018, Marc Jacobs announced the release of its
“Bootleg Redux Grunge” clothing collection. Included in that collection are items
of clothing that utilize a design and logo virtually identical to Nirvana’s copyrighted
image, as shown below:
18. Marc Jacobs’ infringing products all use a “smiley face” image that is
obviously similar to, and an intentional copy of, Nirvana’s copyrighted image as shown below, with the minor differences unlikely to be noticed by the consuming public. Further, Marc Jacobs is using that image on products obviously similar to licensed Nirvana products as shown below:
19. In addition to Defendants’ use of a virtually identical image to
Nirvana’s copyrighted image on the infringing products themselves, Defendants are
using a virtually identical copy of Nirvana’s copyrighted image more generally to
promote Marc Jacobs’ overall “Bootleg Redux Grunge Collection,” which includes
many other products, by making the Nirvana image the signature image used at
promotional events for the “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection,” as shown below:
20. Defendants’ use of Nirvana’s copyrighted image on and to promote its
products is intentional, and is part and parcel of a wider campaign to associate the
entire “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection with Nirvana, one of the founders of the
“Grunge” musical genre, so as to make the “Grunge” association with the collection
more authentic. Promotional copy accompanying each online listing of Marc
Jacobs’ products bearing an image of the infringing “Smiley Face” design and logo
advertises this line as a “Bootleg” Grunge collection, admitting the “bootleg” or
unauthorized nature of these products, while emphasizing the “Grunge” genre of
music with which Nirvana is widely associated. Further, each Marc Jacobs webpage
promoting those infringing products also state that, “This bootleg [product] sure
smells like teen spirit[,]” a conspicuous reference to one of Nirvana’s most famous
songs, “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” with which Nirvana is widely associated. Marc
Jacobs’ promotional materials also uses the title to another famous Nirvana song,
“Come As You Are,” to promote this unauthorized product line as depicted above.
Indeed, Marc Jacobs personally wears in infringing t-shirt directly above this
Nirvana song title to promote his “Bootleg Grunge” collection:
21. All of Defendants’ actions as described above are completely
unauthorized by Nirvana, and are calculated to mislead the public into falsely
believing that Nirvana endorses the entire “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection and
those products within that collection that display Nirvana’s copyrighted “Smiley
Face” design and logo, when Nirvana has not done so. Further, Defendants’
misconduct is intentional. Although Nirvana has demanded that Defendants cease
and desist all such wrongful activities in writing, Defendants have not only ignored
those demands and failed to stop any of the other wrongful activities as described
above, they have further expanded their wrongful activities by use of additional
elements widely associated with Nirvana to mislead the public into believing there is
an association between Nirvana and Marc Jacobs when there is not. For example,
after Nirvana demanded on or about December 4, 2018 that Marc Jacobs cease and
desist its infringing conduct, Marc Jacobs on December 9, 2018 published
promotional materials for its “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection in the New York
Times that both referenced Nirvana’s famous “Nevermind” album and
“recommended” well-known Nirvana songs “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” “As You
Are,” and “Heart Shaped Box” as quintessential “Grunge” songs. Further, Marc
Jacobs is displaying a meme from a video of Nirvana and its co-founder and singer
Kurt Cobain performing “Smells Like Teen Spirit” on its “Tumbler” page. See
http://marcjacobs.tumblr.com/post/180377235602/kurt-cobain-in-nirvanas-smells-
like-teen-spirit/amp. Through these efforts, Defendants are further evoking Nirvana
in the minds of the promotion’s readers and meme’s viewers, further attempting to
associate Marc Jacobs’ “Bootleg Redux Grunge “collection with Nirvana, even
though no such association exists.
22. Defendants’ wrongful actions as described above have caused Nirvana
to suffer irreparable injuries, and threaten to dilute the value of Nirvana’s licenses
with its licensees for clothing products confusingly similar to those infringing
products offered by Defendants. Defendants’ misuse of Nirvana’s intellectual
property to promote themselves and the “Bootleg Redux Grunge:” collection
damages the goodwill associated with Nirvana and violates its rights in numerous
(Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. by Nirvana Against All Defendants)
23. Nirvana realleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
24. Nirvana owns a valid U.S. Copyright in its “Smiley Face” design and
logo, and has obtained a copyright registration for it as shown in Exhibit 1.
25. By creating and selling products depicting substantially similar to
Nirvana’s copyrighted “Smiley Face” design and logo as described above, and by
reproducing and displaying those images to promote Defendants “Bootleg Redux
Gunge” collection, Defendants have reproduced, publicly displayed, distributed, and
created unauthorized derivatives of Nirvana’s copyrighted work in violation of
Nirvana’s exclusive rights as set forth in 17 U.S.C § 106 et seq.
26. As a proximate result of Defendants’ copyright infringement, Nirvana
has suffered significant damages in an amount not presently known with certainty,
but which will be proved at trial. Further, Nirvana is suffering irreparable harm
because of Defendants’ infringing activity.
27. Nirvana is entitled to the range of relief provided by 17 U.S.C. § 502-
505, including injunctive relief and compensatory damages in an amount to be
(False Designation of Origin Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) et. seq. by Nirvana Against All Defendants)
28. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding
29. Through decades of musical, licensing and other activity, Nirvana’s
“Smiley Face” design and logo has, to a significant portion of the consuming
public, come to identify Nirvana as the source of the musical services and licensed
products it has authorized to be released to the public. Nirvana owns and enjoys
common law trademark rights in said design and logo under federal law, which
rights are superior to any rights that Defendants may claim in and to that
trademark with respect to Defendants’ products, services, and commercial
activities. Nirvana’s design and logo mark is inherently distinctive and has
acquired secondary meaning with the trade and consuming public, and/or has
become distinctive in the minds of customers, in that Plaintiffs’ marks are
associated with Nirvana and the unique products it licenses and musical services it
30. Defendants have, without Nirvana’s permission, misappropriated
Nirvana’s “Smiley Face” design and logo, and combined that unauthorized use with
numerous other references to Nirvana’s name, song titles, music, and images of a
Nirvana band member to mislead and confuse the public into believing that Nirvana
approves of, endorses, or is otherwise associated with Defendants and the “Bootleg
Grunge” Collection they are selling, when in fact Nirvana does not approve of,
endorse, or in any way wish to be associated with Defendants, their “Bootleg
Grunge” collection, or any of their other products or services. Defendants’ actions
as described above are likely and will continue to cause confusion or mistake, or to
deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant, their products,
services and commercial activities by or with Nirvana, and thus constitute common
law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, and unfair
competition in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 11 §
1125(a)(1 )(A).
31. Defendants’ misconduct as described above is intentional. As a
proximate result of said actions, Nirvana has suffered, is suffering, and will continue
to suffer, irreparable injury to its rights, and has suffered, and will continue to suffer,
substantial loss of goodwill and loss in the value of its common law marks, unless
and until Defendants are enjoined from continuing their wrongful acts.
32. Nirvana is entitled to the range of relief provided by 15 U.S.C. §§
1116-17, including injunctive relief and compensatory damages in an amount to be
THIRD CLAIM FOR REIEF
(California Common Law Trademark Infringement by Nirvana Against All
33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding
34. Through decades of musical, licensing and other activity, Nirvana’s
“Smiley Face” design and logo has, to a significant portion of the consuming public,
come to identify Nirvana as the source of the musical services and licensed products
it has authorized to be released to the public. Nirvana owns and enjoys common law
trademark rights in said under federal law, which rights are superior to any rights
that Defendants may claim in and to that trademark with respect to Defendants’
products, services, and commercial activities. Nirvana’s mark is inherently
distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning with the trade and consuming
public, and/or has become distinctive in the minds of customers, in that Plaintiffs’
marks are associated with Nirvana and the unique products it licenses and services it
35. Defendants have, without Nirvana’s permission, misappropriated
services and commercial activities by or with Nirvana s, and thus constitute
common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, and
unfair competition in violation of California law.
36. Defendants’ misconduct as described above is intentional, willful,
wanton, malicious and oppressive. As a proximate result of said actions, Nirvana
has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to its rights,
and has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial loss of goodwill and loss in
the value of its common law marks, unless and until Defendants are enjoined from
continuing their wrongful acts.
37. Nirvana is entitled to injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive
(California Unfair Competition by Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding
39. Defendants’ actions are likely to cause confusion, to cause
misrepresentation, to cause mistake, and/or to deceive the public as to the affiliation,
approval, sponsorship, or connection between Defendants and Nirvana, and
constitute unfair competition at common law.
40. By reason of Defendants’ actions in connection with Defendants’
products, services and commercial activities, Nirvana has suffered, and will
continue to suffer, irreparable injury to its rights, and has suffered, and will continue
to suffer, substantial loss of goodwill and loss in the value of its trademark, unless
and until Defendant is enjoined from continuing her wrongful acts.
1. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and all those
acting in active concert with them from all sales of any product or service using
Nirvana’s “Smiley Face” design and logo, or any other image substantially similar
thereto, or to promote Defendants’ “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection in any
2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and all those
acting in active concert with them from using Nirvana’s “Smiley Face” design and
logo, and Nirvana’s name, song titles, any other indicia of Nirvana and any other of
Nirvana’s common law marks or any marks confusingly similar thereto, for the
purpose of the sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, licensing, or implying the
endorsement of, or association with Nirvana, or otherwise promoting Defendants or
Defendants’ goods, services or commercial activities;
3. Requiring Defendants to remove from the Internet and any and all other
media in which Defendants have ever placed them all advertising, merchandising,
electronic press kits, videos, promotional materials, and any other things bearing any
or all of the copyrighted Nirvana “Smiley Face” design and logo, marks, names,
images of Nirvana band members, or real or fictitious sayings to promote
Defendants’ “Bootleg Grunge” Collection or any other of Defendants’ products or
4. Requiring Defendants to account to Plaintiffs for all revenues
Defendants have received as a result of their unauthorized misappropriation and
infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyright and common law trademarks from the
inception of said infringement to the date of judgment herein;
5. That Plaintiffs have and recover a money judgment reflecting their
compensatory and general damages at trial;
6. For punitive damages against defendants for their oppressive,
fraudulent, and malicious conduct;
7. That Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ costs, including
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
By: /s/ Mark S. Lee
Mark S. Lee (SBN: 94103) mark.lee@rimonlaw.com RIMON, P.C. 2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N
Telephone/Facsimile: 310.375.3811
Kendra L. Orr (SBN: 256729) Kendra.orr@rimonlaw.com RIMON, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff NIRVANA L.L.C.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff hereby demands a
trial by jury on all of the claims in their complaint that are triable by a jury.
mark.lee@rimonlaw.com RIMON, P.C. 2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N
Dokumente ähnlich wie Nirvana v. Marc Jacobs
Agnello Et Al-2010-Veterinary Surgery