Opinion ID: 2792853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ’153 and ’685 Trademarks

Text: The ’153 (left) and ’685 (middle) trademarks depict “a circle of segmented curved lines.” E.g., Registration No. 3,678,153. The trademarks are placed on the knob of Southco’s captive screws. The mark on the right is placed on the knob of some of Fivetech’s captive screws. J.A. 269–81. ’153 Trademark ’685 Trademark Fivetech’s Mark The district court granted Fivetech’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’153 and ’685 trademarks because Fivetech did not use the trademarks “in commerce.” Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Tech. Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 507, 511–12 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (Trademark Order). Opposing summary judgment, Southco identified three potential acts of infringement. First, it identified publication of Fivetech’s website, which includes a catalog depicting captive screws with Fivetech’s mark. Second, it identified Fivetech’s filing of a trademark application March 25, 2010, in which Fivetech described its mark as “a pattern of 5 wider ridges along the outer circumference with a circle of 5 segmented curved lines interrupted by 5 18 SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. pentagon shapes” and stated that the mark was “first used in commerce at least as early as 03/10/2010, and is now in use in such commerce.” J.A. 273–74. The application was withdrawn and abandoned three months after it was filed. Third, Southco identified Fivetech’s submission of a quotation list to a customer in the United States that identified part numbers, prices, quantities and lead times for three Fivetech products. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, determining that the Lanham Act did not apply, concluding that “neither Fivetech’s website, product catalogue, nor price quotes . . . can constitute ‘use in commerce’ of [Fivetech’s mark because] [n]one of these involved [Fivetech’s mark] being sold or transported in United States commerce.” Trademark Order, 982 F. Supp. 2d at 511–12. In addition, the district court found that while “Southco’s argument that the offer to sell goods in the United States can constitute infringement under the Lanham Act is correct,” the defendant’s actions here do not bring them within the purview of the Act because there was no evidence that Fivetech shipped marked products to the United States. Id. at 512. The Lanham Act applies to “use in commerce” of “any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). Under the Act, “commerce” means “all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.” Id. § 1127. “[A] mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—(1) on goods when—(A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. 19 the goods or their sale, and (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce.” Id. The district court correctly granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court properly found that none of Southco’s evidence raised a genuine question of material fact that Fivetech’s mark was not used in United States commerce. The district court properly found that Fivetech’s web-based catalog failed to raise a genuine factual dispute regarding use of the trademark in United States commerce because the printout of the catalog was an exhibit attached to Southco’s Complaint without any authentication. Trademark Order, 982 F. Supp. 2d at 510. Further, the catalog alone does not prove that goods were used in commerce in the United States. The district court properly found that Fivetech’s trademark application is not a use in commerce. Although the application stated that products were used in commerce, Southco has not provided any evidence that Fivetech shipped infringing parts to the United States. Finally, Southco’s evidence of an offer for sale, via a quotation list including allegedly infringing parts does not raise a genuine dispute of material fact because there is no evidence that Fivetech ever shipped parts bearing Fivetech’s mark to the United States. To the extent Southco argues that the district court erred by relying on an incorrect legal definition of “use in commerce,” we disagree. None of the actions identified by Southco include shipping infringing products to the United States. Accordingly, Southco has not put forth sufficient evidence to raise a genuine factual dispute regarding the use of the accused trademark in United States commerce.