Opinion ID: 222293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jaso’s Lanham Act Claim

Text: Jaso next contends that the district court’s refusal to allow him to amend his complaint was in error because his proposed second amended complaint alleged violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Jaso argues that Defendants “reverse passed off”9 Jaso’s musical composition as their own when Coca Cola “filed a fraudulent copyright on ‘El Juego’ and affixed a copyright notice to their use of ‘El Juego’ worldwide.” The Lanham Act “establishes no limitations period for claims alleging unfair competition or false advertising.” Conopco, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 95 8 For reasons stated in our discussion of Jaso’s copyright infringement claim, the district court could not rely on the Highlights Exhibit, or counsel’s assertion that use of “Always” stopped in 2000, to conclude that Jaso’s RICO claim was facially barred by the statute of limitations. 9 “Reverse passing off” is a species of Lanham Act violation in which a “producer misrepresents someone else’s goods or services as his own.” Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 27 n.1 (2003). 14 Case: 10-20786 Document: 00511557863 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/01/2011 No. 10-20786 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 1996). Therefore, courts apply the defense of laches to untimely claims, looking to “the most appropriate or the most analogous state statute of limitations for laches purposes.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The parties do not dispute, and we assume for purposes of this case, that the most analogous Texas statute of limitations for a Lanham Act claim is the four-year statute of limitations applied to fraud claims under § 16.004 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. See, e.g., Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber, 601 F. Supp. 2d 839, 859–60 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (“In Texas, a Lanham Act violation is governed by the four year statute of limitations under Texas law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The time period for laches under the Lanham Act “begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the infringement.” Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 205 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The defense of laches requires proof that there was (1) a “delay in asserting a right or claim”; (2) “that the delay was inexcusable”; and (3) “that undue prejudice resulted from the delay.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Jaso’s delay in asserting his Lanham Act claim may have been inexcusable: Jaso stated in his complaint that he was aware that the conduct he has alleged as reverse passing off—obtaining a copyright for “Always”—occurred in 1994, when he commenced his criminal copyright infringement claim against Coca Cola. However, Defendants do not contend that Jaso’s delay in bringing his Lanham Act claim prejudiced them. See Johnson v. Crown Enters., Inc., 398 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (“All that [appellees] argue is that [the appellant] waited too long [to file]. This argument does not satisfy 15 Case: 10-20786 Document: 00511557863 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/01/2011 No. 10-20786 their burden [of proving laches].”).10 Nor does Jaso’s complaint facially establish any undue prejudice to Defendants from his delay. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that Jaso’s complaint established that Jaso’s Lanham Act claim was untimely. As with Jaso’s other claims, our decision to remand is limited to our conclusion that the laches defense is not apparent on the face of Jaso’s proposed second amended complaint.11