Opinion ID: 74539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Leigh's Trademark Claims

Text: 22 In order to prevail on a claim of trademark infringement, a plaintiff has the burden of showing (1) that he had a valid trademark and (2) that the defendant had adopted an identical or similar mark such that consumers were likely to confuse the two. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 106 F.3d 355, 358 (11th Cir.1997). Trademarks are any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof [used] to identify and distinguish [one's] goods ... from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods. 15 U.S.C. § 1127. 5 Trademarks are not merely descriptive; they answer the question Who made it? rather than What is it? See 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 3:6 (4th ed.2000). Finally, the plaintiff's use of the mark must predate the defendant's potentially confusing mark. See Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Community College Dist., 889 F.2d 1018, 1022 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam); 2 McCarthy, supra, at § 16.1, 16.4. 23 The district court interpreted Leigh's Lanham Act claims as an attempt to protect his visual style and concluded that trademark was not an appropriate tool for such an endeavor. Leigh has clarified that he is simply claiming he used the Bird Girl photograph as a source identifier to promote his workshops and the sale of his artwork. To support his trademark claims, Leigh proffered a brochure for his Southern Images Gallery in Savannah; the web sites for his gallery and the Nuovo Fine Art Gallery; advertisements and flyers for exhibits and workshops at the Houston Photo Center, the Genesee Center for the Arts, and the Gwinnett Fine Arts Center; and his own affidavit. 6 None of the flyers, announcements, and web sites indicate use of the Bird Girl photograph before the release of the Warner Brothers movie in late 1997, 7 and they therefore fail as a matter of law to establish Leigh's ownership of trademark rights enforceable against Warner Brothers. Cf. Tally-Ho, 889 F.2d at 1023. 24 The only evidence submitted by Leigh to establish use of the Bird Girl photograph as a trademark prior to the release of the Warner Brothers movie was his third affidavit. 8 That affidavit, however, is little more than a brief, conclusory assertion of trademark usage. It asserts that Leigh has used the photograph to promote his work since May 1994 and it mentions the Southern Images Gallery by name, but it is devoid of any other detail. This court has consistently held that conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value. See Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985). [O]ne who resists summary judgment must meet the movant's affidavits with opposing affidavits setting forth specific facts to show why there is an issue for trial. Gossett v. Du-Ra-Kel Corp., 569 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir.1978); 9 see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e). Leigh has the burden of proving that he had trademark rights in the Bird Girl photograph before the release of the Warner Brothers movie; in response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, he did not provide any specific facts supporting prior use sufficient to create a genuine issue for trial. 25 Furthermore, the web sites and printed advertisements or announcements largely use the Bird Girl photograph descriptively, as an example of Leigh's work, rather than as a trademark. The Houston Photo Center, for example, printed the Bird Girl photograph as an example of the works available at an auction. Similarly, the Gwinnett Fine Arts Center showed the Bird Girl photograph in an advertisement as a sample of the art on display at a juried exhibition. When the Genesee Center for the Arts advertised a workshop and lecture by Leigh, it used both the Bird Girl image and another of Leigh's photographs, entitled Cold Mellons. Similarly, the Bird Girl appears on the web site for the Southern Images Gallery in thumbnail size next to the gallery's name, address, and phone number. This initially appears to be a trademark use of the photograph, but the thumbnail rotates every few seconds through five of Leigh's pictures. 26 The prominent display of the Bird Girl photograph on the cover of a brochure for the Southern Exposure Gallery and the thumbnail use of the photograph on the Nuovo Gallery web site's link to the Southern Exposure Gallery may be attempts to identify the gallery as a whole and all the art it sells with the widely-recognized image. Even these examples, however, are not so clear. All of the printed exhibits offered by Leigh, including the materials related to the Southern Images Gallery, concern special events or sites at which the Bird Girl photograph itself is for sale, on display, or subject to discussion. As used in the materials submitted by Leigh, the Bird Girl image strikes us not as a separate and distinct mark on the good, but, rather, as the good itself. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749, 754 (6th Cir.1998). 27 The district court also held that as a matter of law Leigh could not prove the second element of a trademark claim, a likelihood of confusion. More specifically, Leigh would have to prove that consumers were likely to believe that he sponsored or was involved with the Warner Brothers movie or promotional materials. Leigh argues that he raised genuine issues of fact relating to a number of the factors this circuit considers when determining the likelihood of confusion. See E. Remy Martin & Co. v. Shaw-Ross Int'l Imports, Inc., 756 F.2d 1525, 1530 n. 15 (11th Cir.1985) (listing the factors relevant to the likelihood of confusion). Warner Brothers, in turn, raises the fair use doctrine and the First Amendment as alternative defenses to Leigh's trademark infringement claims. We need not consider these issues, however, because we hold that Leigh has no trademark rights in his Bird Girl photograph. 28 Finally, Leigh argues that this case is similar to Gilliam v. American Broad. Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 24-25 (2d Cir.1976), in which the Second Circuit held that altering an artist's work and attributing the new creation to the artist can violate the Lanham Act. Gilliam in effect granted protection for an artist's moral rights in trademark law. See id. at 24. This circuit has not adopted Gilliam, but even if we were to do so, Leigh cannot satisfy either of the essential elements for a Gilliam claim. First, Warner Brothers did not actually alter or distort Leigh's photograph when producing its film and accompanying promotional materials; instead, it started from scratch, building its own replica of the Bird Girl statue to photograph and film. Second, Warner Brothers never attributed its images of the Bird Girl statue to Leigh. The only colorable evidence of such an attribution presented by Leigh is a statement by the movie's screenwriter at a publicity appearance for the movie, Yeah, he [Director Clint Eastwood] uses it in the movie. 10 Leigh argues that the screenwriter might have meant that Eastwood used Leigh's work. The deposition transcript makes clear, however, that the screenwriter was talking about the film sequences of the Bird Girl, 11 which could not have been alterations of Leigh's photograph and cannot give rise to a Gilliam claim.