Opinion ID: 3160389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vicarious liability under the Lanham Act

Text: This Circuit allows plaintiffs to hold defendants vicariously liable for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act when the defendant and the infringer have an actual or apparent partnership, have authority to bind one another in transactions, or exercise joint ownership or control over the infringing product. Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow, 717 F.3d 498, 502 (6th Cir. 2013) (adopting test of Fourth and Seventh Circuits articulated in Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 165 (4th Cir. 2012), and Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Servs., Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. 1992)). While Coach involved a claim for trademark infringement under a different section of the Lanham Act, the Ninth Circuit, which also uses this test, has extended it to false designation of origin claims brought under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). See Routt v. Amazon.com, Inc., 584 F. App’x 713, 716 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 807 (9th Cir. 2007) (employing Hard Rock Cafe test for false designation of origin claims)). We therefore use that test here. Plaintiffs contend that they have stated a claim based on the text of the e-mail StrunkZwick sent to twenty-two clients. The e-mail explicitly refers to the relationship of Tri-Serve and Sheakley as a partnership: “We are partnering with Sheakley HR and moving our offices. As many of you know, we have partnered with Sheakley over the years with regards to our workers compensation and unemployment management.” (R. 87, Compl. ¶ 840, Page ID 3185.) Strunk-Zwick apparently used the language about “partnering” at the suggestion of Defendant Larry Wolf, who suggested in an e-mail to Strunk-Zwick on June 21, 2009 that she contact TriServe clients to inform them that “we are partnering with Sheakley and that we may transition them over to give them better service etc.” (Id. ¶ 971(h), Page ID 3221.) The intent to create an No. 15-3302 Grubbs, et al. v. Sheakley Group, et al. Page 8 apparent partnership in the eyes of the Tri-Serve clients is self-evident from this language, and we therefore proceed to the merits of the claim for improper use of trade name and false designation of origin brought against the Sheakley Entity Defendants.