Source: http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/2008/04/
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 13:51:18
Document Index: 321199083

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 1367', '§1114', '§1125', '§417', '§417', '§1117']

Michael Atkins offers some excellent advice on his Seattle Trademark Lawyer blog about finding expert witnesses for trademark cases.
One popular online source is the online expert witness directory JurisPro. Other expert witness websites listing the credentials of various trademark experts include ALMExperts.com, expertwitnesses.com, and Intota.com.
Of course, one of the more interesting "trademark experts" out there touts his credentials via YouTube (link here). Of course, before you hire him, you may want to check out this wikipedia writeup or the string of posts about this expert on The TTABlog®.
Posted by Ryan Gile at 7:44 PM No comments:
On April 21, 2008, a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas issued his report and recommendations recommending that the district court grant a motion for summary judgment filed by Domino’s Pizza (“Domino's”) in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by The Great American Restaurant Company (“Pizzeria”) over Domino’s use of the name “Brooklyn Style Pizza.” See The Great American Restaurant Company v. Domino's Pizza LLC et al, Case No. 07-cv-00052, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32495 (E.D. Texas April 21, 2008).
Pizzeria’s complaint alleged, inter alia, trademark infringement by Domino’s of Pizzeria’s registered trademarks for A TASTE OF THE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD and BROOKLYN'S OLD NEIGHBORHOOD STYLE PIZZERIA. After the lawsuit was filed, Domino’s stopped running advertisements using the slogan “taste of the old neighborhood,” but continued to market its Brooklyn Style Pizza. Pizzeria maintained that Domino’s use of the Brooklyn Style Pizza mark will cause consumers to associates Pizzeria's “high quality, hand-made pizza” with Domino's “inferior quality, machine-produced pizzas” even though Pizzeria acknowledges that it does not sell “Brooklyn style pizza.”
Noting that a trademark cannot be infringed by a generic term for the product it designates, the court analyzed Pizzeria’s claim of infringement by turning its focus to the classification of Domino’s “Brooklyn Style Pizza” mark (i.e., whether it is generic or, if descriptive, whether it has acquired a secondary meaning identifying the source of a product, and not just to identify the product itself).
In order to demonstrate that the public perceives the Brooklyn Style Pizza mark as generic, Domino's submitted survey evidence, various newspaper advertisements mentioning “Brooklyn style pizza,” and 28 media articles referring to the term generically. Domino’s also noted that over a hundred restaurants around the country use the Brooklyn Style Pizza name and even the USPTO has recognized “Brooklyn style pizza” as a generic term not entitled to protection.
Pizzeria attempted to argue that there is no such thing as “Brooklyn style pizza” by having a food expert testify as such and arguing that this at least created a factual issue as to the whether the “Brooklyn Style Pizza” mark was generic. The court stated the following regarding Pizzeria’s expert:
Schwartz [Pizzeria’s expert] then devotes four pages of his affidavit directing the Court to where the best pizza can be found and how it is made -- a must read for any pizza maven. Where is the best pizza? According to Schwartz, it is not Domino's, but probably at Di Fara's, which has recently been reopened after having been closed down by the health department. Equally interesting is that Di Fara uses sheep's milk cheese.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32495 at *10.
Pizzeria also argued that Domino’s own arguments and evidence demonstrated that the “Brooklyn Style Pizza” mark was at least descriptive. However, the court rejected Pizzeria’s position because, even assuming the mark to be descriptive, Pizzeria had not submitted any evidence showing the “Brooklyn Style Pizza” mark to have acquired a secondary meaning whereby its primary significance to the consuming public was to identify the source of a product, rather than the product itself. Pizzeria’s own survey, which the court actually excluded because it “too flawed to be reliable,” found that ¾ of the participants surveyed had no idea that Domino’s sold a “Brooklyn style pizza.”
The court concluded that, whether viewed as generic or as descriptive, Domino’s use of the name “Brooklyn Style Pizza” could not serve as a basis for Pizzeria to claim for trademark infringement
The court added that, even if Domino’s use of “Brooklyn Style Pizza” could be a basis for Pizzeria’s trademark infringement claim, there was no likelihood of confusion between Domino’s “Brooklyn Style Pizza” mark and Pizzeria’s “Brooklyn’s Old Neighborhood Style Pizzeria.”
Although the court did not do a factor-by-factor analysis of the eight likelihood of confusion factors used by the Fifth Circuit (see American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321, 329 (5th Cir. 2008)), the court noted that Domino’s survey report was the only probative survey which even addressed the issue of likelihood of confusion, and concluded that there was none. The court noted that the two establishments, while selling the same product (pizza), are different in that Pizzeria is primarily a dine-in restaurant where the pizza is delivered to the customer’s table whereas Domino’s is primarily delivery where the pizza is delivered in a car. [Ed.- this is what the court wrote]. The court further noted that Pizzeria submitted no evidence that Domino’s selected its name with the intent to compete with Pizzeria – rejecting the evidence by Pizzeria of a few customers who presented Domino’s coupons (such evidence “fails to suggest real confusion since it is not unusual according to the testimony for individuals to present inappropriate coupons. See also Pizzazz Pizza & Rest. v. Taco Bell Corp., 642 F. Supp. 88 (N.D. Ohio 1986).” 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32495 at *12-13). Finally, the court found that Pizzeria had presented no evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to a likelihood of confusion with respect to its other phrase “a taste of the old neighborhood”
If nothing else, this whole exercise has been a learning experience in defining what a Brooklyn style pizza is. One of Domino's exhibits states that its allure is so powerful that Carmine Giovianzzo (CSI: NY) still walks the streets of Southern California in search of a Brooklyn style pizza (evidently he didn't find it at Domino's). So, in the end analysis, if you are from Brooklyn, you may know what it is or what it is not, but, in any event, the mere mention of [“Brooklyn Style Pizza”] doesn't conjure up the image of a $ 9.99 pizza delivered in a cardboard box with a red domino on it.
The court recommended summary judgment be granted in favor of Domino’s with respect to Pizzeria’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims arising from Domino’s use of the phrase “Brooklyn Style Pizza.”
The court went on to dismiss Pizzeria’s other claims for unfair competitions under both the Lanham Act and Texas law noting that Pizzeria simply did not address whether Domino’s use of the mark “a taste of the old neighborhood” for the limited time it did caused or was likely to cause any confusion. The court further noted that the parties “exercised 99% of their resources addressing [“Brooklyn Style Pizza”] and nothing more.” Id. at *14. The court recommend summary judgment be granted in favor of Domino’s with respect to Pizzeria’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims arising from Domino’s use of the phrase “a taste of the old neighborhood.”
Finally, Pizzeria had also sought injunctive relief under the Texas Anti-Dilution Act (see TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 16.29). Because the statute allows for recovery without a showing of likelihood of confusion, the court did not grant summary judgment with respect to this claim; however, because this state law claim was the only remaining claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim (see 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3)) and recommended it be dismissed without prejudice.
Around the time Domino’s introduced its Brooklyn Style Pizza, The New York Times ran an article (link here) about the authenticity of Domino’s Brooklyn style pizza – and addresses the issue of what exactly constitutes a "Brooklyn style pizza."
Any reader thoughts about the issue of Brooklyn style pizza?
Labels: Generic, Likelihood of Confusion
Caribbean Crème files trademark infringement lawsuit against Krispy Kreme over “Caribbean Kreme”
Caribbean Creme's smoothie machine
On April 21, 2008, Caribbean Crème, Inc. (“CCI”), a St. Louis, Missouri-based company that produces and sells equipment to make a fruit smoothie by the name “Caribbean Crème,” filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and other affiliates companies (“Krispy Kreme”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to stop the famed doughnut maker from selling a frozen beverage drink it calls “Caribbean Kreme.” See Caribbean Creme, Inc. vs. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00541 (E.D. Mo. April 18, 2008). A copy of the complaint (courtesy of TMZ.com) can be downloaded here.
CCI holds a trademark registration for the design mark CARRIBEAN CRÈME (and Design) (pictured above on the left) for non-dairy, flavored frozen confections and ice cream drinks. According to the complaint, CCI has been selling its flavored semi-frozen drink under the name “Caribbean Crème” flavored since 1994.
Krispy Kreme, in addition to its popular line of doughnuts, has been selling a line of flavored frozen smoothies called Chillers. Sometime before April 8, 2008, Krispy Kreme introduced a new “limited time” (until June 2nd) Chiller flavor called Caribbean Kreme Chiller coinciding with Krispy Kreme limited-time specialty Caribbean Kreme Doughnut.
CCI argues that Krispy Kreme’s use of the name Caribbean Kreme for its competing semi-frozen beverage is likely to cause confusion with its own semi-frozen beverage. CCI claims federal trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1114), unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A)), common law trademark infringement, trademark infringement under Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat §417.066(1), and trademark dilution under Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat §417.061(1))
In addition to seeking an injunction against Krispy Kreme and an order destroying anything bearing the infringing mark, CCI also seeks Krispy Kreme’s profits, treble damages (under the premise that Krispy Kreme’s infringement was willful), costs, and attorney’s fees (under the premise that this case is “exceptional” under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a))
One wonders why CCI did not seek (at least not yet) any kind of preliminary injunction. After all, by the time this case gets anywhere, Krispy Kreme will no longer even be selling the Caribbean Kreme. If CCI was really serious about this infringement and wanted to stop it, why would it not seek an immediate preliminary injunction -- unless perhaps CCI realized its tenuous case for likelihood of success on the merits (weak mark, dissimilar marks when viewed in their entirety, no competitive proximity, Krispy Kreme's intent). The only factors seemingly favoring CCI are identical goods and low degree of care by purchasers (a factor that some Eighth Circuit decisions have recognized in deciding likelihood of confusion). Should CCI decide to push the case, the parties will likely reach some kind of settlement.
One wonders if CCI would have still had an issue if Krispy Kreme had chosen the name “Karibbean Kreme” – a much more fanciful mark more in line with the company’s famous KRISPY KREME mark and which is one additional "K" removed from CCI's mark.
Posted by Ryan Gile at 7:50 PM No comments:
Posted by Ryan Gile at 6:00 AM 1 comment:
I previously wrote (link here) about the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Cost Plus World Market against the Las Vegas-based World Market Center over the mark WORLD MARKET CENTER. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. et al v. World Market Center Venture, LLC, Case No. 07-cv-00156 (D. Nev.). (Links to other news stories on the lawsuit can be found here, here, and here).
The parties announced yesterday (link to press release here) that they have reached an agreement that will allow both businesses to continue to use their respective logos and names and which will dismiss the pending lawsuit.
Bob Maricich, president and chief executive officer of World Market Center, was quoted as saying:
I am very pleased that we were able to come to a fair and equitable resolution to these trademark and brand-related issues. We believe this agreement preserves the integrity of both brands and allows each of us to move forward with our unique and compelling business models.
Naturally, the terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
Posted by Ryan Gile at 5:15 PM No comments:
Harry Potter and the Disappearing Trademark Infringement Claims
In the trial of the lawsuit filed by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros against RDR Books over its planned publication of the “Harry Potter Lexicon” (a print version of the free-of-charge Harry Potter Lexicon fan website - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ - created by Steven Vander Ark), so much of the media attention has focused on the copyright infringement claims that I was beginning to wonder when the parties would get around to the “good stuff” – namely, the claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition that were part of the original and amended complaint. See Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. RDR Books et al, Case No. 07-cv-09667 (S.D.N.Y.); see also previous blog posts here and here.
Well, either through wizardry or good lawyering, it appears that the parties may have reached a settlement of those claims.
As reported by the WSJ.com Law Blog today (link here), the lawyers informed the court this morning that they had reached a settlement on the false advertising and deceptive trade practices claims whereby RDR agreed not to use J.K Rowling’s name nor her quote endorsing the online version of the Lexicon on the cover of the book version.
In addition, Anthony Falzone, the executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society, who is one of the attorneys representing RDR Books, also informed the court that the parties want to “paper a settlement” on the trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.
Sounds like the parties have reached an agreement on the disclaimer to be used on the book’s cover and elsewhere (and possibly an agreement not to use the stylized Harry Potter mark) in order to prevent the public from being confused as to any affiliation, connection, or association of the publisher with Rowling and Warner Bros. or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Lexicon by Rowling and Warner Bros.
With those claims settled, that only leaves that boring copyright infringement claim. (yawn – ed.)
But for those of you interested in the copyright infringement aspects of the case, which are significant especially with respect to the fair use defense, check out the following posts:
WSJ Law Blog Q&A with King & Spalding IP attorney Ethan Horwitz (link here)
Prof. William Patry’s post (here) on “The Patry Copyright Blog” regarding the case
Professor Tim Wu’s comments (here) on Slate about the lawsuit
Labels: Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, Infringement
Posted by Ryan Gile at 7:30 PM No comments:
Posted by Ryan Gile at 8:07 AM No comments:
Posted by Ryan Gile at 7:41 PM No comments:
Posted by Ryan Gile at 7:12 PM 1 comment:
Posted by Ryan Gile at 1:30 PM No comments: