t-cam developments you can’t afford to ignore t-cam... · the lanham act at the supreme court...
TRANSCRIPT
T-CAM Developments You Can’t Afford to Ignore: 2015 Year in Review Jim Steffen FaegreBD
The Lanham Act at the Supreme Court
►Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907 (2015) ► Cert. granted to resolve Circuit split on question of whether legal
equivalence for “tacking” priority to a prior version of a mark is a question of fact (for the jury) or a question of law (for the judge).
► SCOTUS: legal equivalence, a question of whether the marks “create the same, continuing impression,” “relies upon an ordinary consumer’s understanding of the impression” of the mark and should be decided by the jury as a question of fact.
► Not surprising; little practical effect
2
The Lanham Act at the Supreme Court
►B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) ► SCOTUS reverses Eighth Circuit
► holding that “so long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when issues adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before a district court, issue preclusion should apply.”
► Questions of how broadly preclusion would apply were largely left for later development.
► Seemingly may turn on whether TTAB considered “marketplace evidence” ► Not limited to likelihood of confusion – Ashe v. PNC Financial (D. Md. Nov.
2015) (preclusion on issue of priority of use) ►Ruling surprised many practitioners; requires reconsideration of
strategy ►FaegreBD planning separate WebEx seminar for Q1 2016.
3
The Lanham Act at the Supreme Court
►The Next SCOTUS Issue? ► Does Section 2(a)’s prohibition on registration of offensive marks
violated the First Amendment? ► In re McGinley (Fed. Circ. 1981) said no First Amendment violation
► no conduct proscribed; no tangible form of expression suppressed ►But, now pending in two Circuits
► In re Tam (Federal Circuit, en banc) – THE SLANTS for a rock band ► Pro-Football v. Blackhorse (Fourth Circuit) – REDSKINS for football
team
Trademark: Guidance from the Federal Circuit
►You’d Better Have Documents Supporting Your Intent To Use ... ► M.Z. Berger & Co. v. Swatch AG, 787 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
► Affirmed TTAB that applicant had mere intent to reserve a mark, not a bona fide intent to use the mark in ordinary course of commerce
► “applicant’s intent must be demonstrable and more than mere subjective intent” – it requires “objective evidence of intent”
► “decided on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances”
►Service mark isn’t “used” until service is actually rendered; “offering” service is not enough
► Couture v. Playdom, Inc., 778 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ► Could be read as inconsistent with some prior opinions ► Opens potential lines of defense in infringement actions
Trademark: Crisis Averted
►Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com ►District Court granted summary
judgment. ► Products clearly labeled →
no likelihood of confusion ►July 2015: 9th Circuit reversed.
► Jury must decide initial interest confusion.
►October 2015: 9th Circuit reverses itself.
► Summary judgment affirmed.
Trademark: Store Brands
►Store brands largely winning, but national brands keep trying... ► Pepperidge Farm, Inc. v. Trader Joe’s Co. (D. Conn., filed Dec. 2015)
Trademarks: Global Developments
►European Union trademark reform coming, beginning April 2016 ► Names changes: CTM→EUTM and OHIM→EUIPO ► Broader provision for non-traditional marks (e.g., sound, color) ► End of grandfathering of pre-June 2012 “class heading” registrations
► Amend now or be limited to literal terms. ► Fee changes effective April 2016
► End of 3-for-1 class pricing ► Lower renewal fees
► Allows for third-party objections during prosecution (letter of protest). ► All national systems must allow opposition / cancellation in trademarks
office without requirement of court action. ► To fight counterfeiting, action allowed against goods in transit.
Trademarks: Global Developments
►Delays in Canadian Trademark Reform ► Had expected changes, including Madrid ascension, by 2015
► With software issues, may not happen until 2018 ► Has begun accepting optional Nice classifications
►Madrid Expansion Continues ► New this year: OAPI (17 nations), Algeria, The Gambia, Zimbabwe ► More expected with Trans Pacific Partnership agreement
►Attention to Cuba ► Applications legal through Madrid Protocol
Trademarks: Quick Hits
►Has “trademark verbing” trend finally crested? ► Violates first “rule” of trademark use (tm is an adjective ...) ► But, if employed carefully with strong marks, won’t actually result in
genericide; might even add strength ► Now ubiquitous; perhaps post-peak?
►Social media IP-shaming ► Long had to be concerned with posting of C&D letters and responses. ► Now frequently seeing instances where social media is end in itself
► no legal claim ever asserted. ► Take care not to elevate PR problem to legal problem; team with PR
►Native American names and associations ► Urban Outfitters suit as reminder of difficult legal setting.
Don’t Forget ICANN’s New gTLDs
►Largely out-of-sight, out-of-mind for most of us – but ... ► Now more than 750 functioning new gTLDs ► .xyz has largest number of second-level registrants – > 1.5 million
► Growth spurred by Alphabet’s reservation of abc.xyz ► Successful enough to spawn false advertising suits with .com (Verisign)
► Some lesser traction with other new gTLDs – e.g., .bank, .law ► Most being used to link to .com sites
► faegrebd.law links to faegrebd.com ► Beginning to see some move to using new gTLD as home gTLD
► myfbtbank.com → myfarmers.bank ► dollarbank.com → dollar.bank
► Query: Will Google begin to use gTLDs in search algorithms?
Don’t Forget ICANN’s New gTLDs
►Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms – mixed results ► More than 37,000 marks in Trademark Clearinghouse
► Notices of Clearinghouse rights having at least some positive effect ► Vast majority don’t follow through when notified, but ...
► Sunrise Period rights – less useful than hoped ► Confusion as to dates, rules ► “Premium” pricing
► URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) – less useful than hoped ► Very few filed ► Limited remedy; tight standards
► UDPRs – the usual problems with proving bad faith ► Brand owners wins in the YoYo .email hijacking cases ► Brand owner losses in delta.tours and marlboro.party
Old School Right of Publicity Issues
13
Old School Right of Publicity Issues
Old School Right of Publicity Issues
►“Reese Ring” Suit: Cleared for trial in L.A.
Old School Right of Publicity Issues
►Motion to dismiss pending: Harris Faulkner v. Hasbro
Copyright: Fair Use Developments
►Most interesting developments in 2015 in development and broadening circuit split in fair use analysis
► Covered in depth in first session of this series in October ► Note particularly split between the Second and Seventh Circuits in what
is the most important factor in the fair use analysis ► E.g., Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2014) (market
effect is most important factor; expressly criticizing Second Circuit’s position that transformative use is the critical inquiry)
Copyright: Fair Use and the DMCA
►Some backlash against perception that copyright claimants are misusing DMCA take-down provisions.
► Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 9/14/2015) ► YouTube video of baby dancing to Prince’s Let’s Go Crazy ► Lenz says Universal’s take-down notice in bad faith for failure to consider
fair use. ► District Court and Ninth Circuit agree; case can proceed to trial.
► YouTube announced in November 2015 that it will provide legal support
to posters challenging take-down notices on fair use grounds.
Copyright: Pop Quiz on Litigation Trends
►Huge numbers of Internet file sharing/download suits, many against “John Doe” defendants.
►Excepting those, have the largest number of federal copyright suits filed over the past few years involved claims of infringement of:
A. musical works; B. photographs; C. textile designs; or D. computer software?
Copyright: Textile Design Suits
►“Copyright trolls” in the fashion industry ► Since 2009, 11 of top 16 defendants in non-file sharing cases are retailers
► e.g., Ross Stores (181 cases); TJX Cos. (98 cases); Burlington Coat Factory (54 cases)
► Since 2009, 741 cases by an L.A. boutique law firm representing textile industry “copyright trolls”
► e.g., L.A. Printex, Unicolors, Star Fabrics, United Fabrics ►Has attracted some press / legislative attention ►Acting as something of a counterweight to the fashion industries push
for copyright or copyright-like protection for clothing designs
Copyright: Textile Design Suits
►Some hope came earlier this year when a District Court in Tennessee suggested that stripes, coloring and shapes on cheerleading uniforms were utilitarian and couldn’t have copyright protection.
►But, 6th Circuit reversed – “more like fabric design than dress design” ► Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC (8/19/2015) ► Certiorari? There was a dissent ...
Copyright: “Reasonable Royalty” Damages
►Gaylord v. United States, 777 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ► Postal Service depicted Gaylord’s sculpture on stamp without permission. ► Fair use claimed, but rejected. ► Federal Circuit affirms award of 10% royalty on $5.4 million in sales. ► Damages affirmed based on “hypothetical negotiation” test common in
patent cases, with explicit comment on borrowing from patent law. ► Consider: work’s footprint in market; non-infringing alternatives, past
licenses, etc.
Copyright: Quick Hits
►Of local interest: changes to anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA as they related to the ability of patients and researchers to obtain data from medical devices, particularly implantable medical devices.
►Perennial copyright jurisdiction question: application sufficient or must court wait for Copyright Office to act?
► Circuit split. ► Eighth Circuit has not take a position. ► November 2015 Judge Doty order in Asche & Spencer Music, Inc. v.
Principato-Young Entertainment, Inc. (Civ. No. 15-3305) ► Granting motion to dismiss; court must wait for Copyright Office to act.
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
►Advertising disputes up in courts and at NAD ► But, most decisions are applications of established principles ► No real blockbuster or groundbreaking decisions this year
►NAD, however, had three cases that test the marketer’s refrain that,
“it’s not a claim, it’s just funny!”
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
► DirecTV, LLC – Picture, Sound, Signal Reliability and Customer Service Advertising (NAD #5820, 3/2015) (NARB #____, 8/2015)
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
► DirecTV, LLC – Picture, Sound, Signal Reliability and Customer Service
Advertising (NAD #5820, 3/2015) (NARB #____, 8/2015) (humor defense loses)
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
► Dole Packaged Foods, LLC – Dole Fruit Bowls (NAD #5868, 7/2015)
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
► Dole Packaged Foods, LLC – Dole Fruit Bowls (NAD #5868, 7/2015)
(humor defense wins)
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
► Dollar Shave Club, Inc. – Dollar Shave Club Razors (NAD #5834, 5/2015)
Advertising Law: The Humor “Defense”
► Dollar Shave Club, Inc. – Dollar Shave Club Razors (NAD #5834, 5/2015)
(humor defense f**king kills)
NAD Rule Revisions
►Long anticipated; somewhat controversial. ►Announced at September 2015 NAD Conference ►Highlights:
► Scheduling to be more tightly controlled to speed results ► Private settlements will result in automatic case closure. ► First sentence of advertiser’s statement must say: (a) will comply; (b)
won’t comply; or ( c) will appeal. ► No longer able to avoid issue with “will take into consideration in future
advertising.” ► NAD will no longer be a party to NARB appeals.
FTC: Focus On Endorsements Disclosures
►FTC requires disclosure of material connections between advertisers and endorsers.
►What’s a material connection? ► Exchange of cash or in-kind payment (freebies, coupons)
►Who are we talking about? ► Paid bloggers ► Employees on social media sites ► Celebrities
►What do you have to do? ► Educate endorsers—provide guidance on how/what to disclose, provide
the disclosure statement. ► Monitor—stop using endorsers who fail to make disclosures.
32
FTC: Focus On Endorsements Disclosures
► .com Disclosures Guide (March 2013) ► First revision since 2000 (pre-Twitter, etc.) ► Issue: What to do about disclosures when small screens/character limit
are an obstacle to traditional disclosures/footnotes? ► Answer: General advertising law applies
► Must always be “clear and conspicuous” and in close proximity. ► If the medium doesn’t allow proper disclosures, don’t use the medium.
► Focus on disclosures necessary to prevent misleading: ► Health/safety/cost disclosures must be integrated in same screen in all formats. ► For other disclosures, hyperlinks must be specific: “Restocking fees apply”; not
“More details”. ► Can’t use mechanism that won’t work for many (e.g., no pop-ups) ► Disclosures will be found inadequate if analytics demonstrate users were not
viewing disclosures; burden on advertisers to adjust per their analytics. 33
FTC: Focus On Endorsements Disclosures
►FTC Endorsement Disclosure FAQs (May 2015)
34
FTC: Focus On Endorsements Disclosures
35
FTC: Focus On Endorsements Disclosures
36
Quick Hits: Privacy
► In October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the U.S.-E.U. data transfer safe harbor on which many U.S. companies relied.
► New framework and/or other action expected within weeks.
►FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (3d Cir. Aug. 2015) ► Security breach led FTC to allege “unfair” practices under Section 5(a) ► Affirmed that FTC has jurisdiction over data security practices ► Focus in part was on inaccurate statements in privacy policies
► FTC will interpret privacy policy literally and against you ► Say what you mean, and mean what you say
California (Finally) Fixes Its “Made In USA” Law
►California long had standard far stricter than FTC or any other state. ► Was nearly impossible to be CA “Made in USA” compliant ► Substantial volume of class action litigation ► Nordstrom vendor paid millions earlier this year
►Governor Brown signed revision on September 1, 2015. ► Still different than FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard:
► 5% of final wholesale value of product; or ► 10% if part can’t be obtained in U.S. for reason other than cost.
