Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Chanel, Inc., which like many other luxury-goods companies has been constantly plagued by counterfeiters, has taken its legal fight against unauthorized knock-offs to a whole new level. On November 14, 2011, acting at Chanel's request, U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson of the District of Nevada signed an order that not only prohibits hundreds of alleged trademark infringers from manufacturing or selling fake Chanel handbags, wallets, shoes, and the like - but also orders the defendants' domain names seized and transferred to the Web hosting company GoDaddy, which would direct them to a page describing the seizure. The temporary restraining order also orders that the counterfeiters' domain names be "de-indexed" by Google, Bing, Yahoo, and all social media websites, specifically mentioning Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

Chanel, Inc. had filed suit against several websites for selling counterfeit versions of its merchandise. Chanel hired an investigative firm to purchase several items from three of the websites named as defendants in the lawsuit. The investigators then sent those items to a Chanel consultant who determined that the merchandise was not genuine Chanel. The consultant also examined other merchandise offered for sale on these websites and determined that none of the items offered were authentic Chanel products. The defendant websites were not authorized dealers of Chanel products and therefore were in direct violation of Chanel's trademark rights.

Chanel's trademark lawyers obtained this injunctive relief by, among other things, pointing out that counterfeiters use search engine optimization (SEO) just as legitimate companies do, and that it was necessary for the court to shut down their ability to use the Web to compete unfairly with Chanel. "Chanel does contend that it has the right to fairly compete for such search engine results space unfettered by unfair competition stemming from an illegal use of Chanel's trademarks," Chanel's lawyers wrote in the underlying motion.

But did the court even have the authority to cast such a wide net with its ruling? Facebook and Twitter, for example, have been ordered to de-index the infringing sites, but they were not even parties to the lawsuit. As the Ars Technica tech blog argues: "Missing from the ruling is any discussion of the Internet's global nature; the judge shows no awareness that the domains in question might not even be registered in this country, for instance, and his ban on search engine and social media indexing apparently extends to the entire world."

The court came down hard on the copycats and resorted to the extreme measure of attempting to have their existence scrubbed from the World Wide Web. The question now becomes whether it is the responsibility of the search engines and the social media sites to ensure that the offending websites do not show up as search results.

If a blog is successful and gains name recognition among the public, with whom is the brand associated in the minds of readers, the publisher or the primary author of the blog? Apparently not a lot of thought has gone into this interesting question, as the New York Times did not apply for a trademark for its popular "Motherlode" parenting blog until its primary author, Lisa Belkin, left the Times to create "Parentlode" at The Huffington Post. Now it will be up to the courts to determine whether the Times has exclusive trademark rights to the "Motherlode" name and similar-sounding derivatives.

The New York Times Co. sued the Huffington Post and AOL, its parent company, on November 4, 2011, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. NYT's trademark lawyers argue in the complaint that the mark "Parentlode" is "clearly derived" from the Times' established "Motherlode" trademark and that it was "intended to create an association with Ms. Belkin's prior work" at the Times. According to the complaint, there is evidence that confusion already exists in readers' minds between the "Motherlode" blog, which the Times is continuing to publish, and the new "Parentlode" blog at the Huffington Post. On Twitter, for example, someone wrote (incorrectly, the Times argues) that "The NYT's Motherlode becomes HuffPo's Parentlode."

In her first "Parentlode" blog entry, Belkin referred to "Parentlode" as a "new name" that in a nonsexist manner includes fathers as well as mothers. The Times seized upon this statement and wrote that Belkin "clearly intended to create an association in the minds of readers between the two competing blogs, and further, [Belkin's] reference to the 'new name' was a deliberate attempt to mislead readers into mistakenly believing it was the same blog, albeit with a slightly different name and location."

Clearly, the Times has a strong argument that "motherlode" is a real word that has come to be associated with the widely read parenting blog published on its website. "Parentlode" does not exist in the English language and certainly seems to have been selected as a play on the Motherlode name. But if there is a trademark in the Motherlode name, who owns it? Trademark law is designed to permit consumers to identify the source of goods or services. The source of most of the articles on Motherlode was Ms. Belkin, and consumers may associate the name more with Ms. Belkin than the NYT. Still, the blog was published on the NYT's website and NYT alleges it came up with the Motherlode name and paid Ms. Belkin to write the content. From where I'm sitting, it appears the Times has a legitimate complaint.

Oleg Cassini was a French-born American fashion designer who created a wardrobe for Jacqueline Kennedy. Now, the company that he founded, Oleg Cassini Inc., finds itself embroiled in trademark litigation with Serta, Inc., over Serta's decision to name a particular mattress model the "Cassini."

The dispute arose when Serta unveiled a line of mattresses, to be sold exclusively at J.C. Penney stores, with names that were related to outer space. Among them were Gemini, Eclipse, Taurus, Moonscape, Nebula - and Cassini. Serta claimed that the name was inspired by Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625-1712), an Italian-French astronomer and mathematician who was the first person to observe four of Saturn's moons. When the Oleg Cassini company found out about the existence of products such as the "Serta Perfect Day Cassini Firm Twin Mattress Set," it sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Serta company, declaring that it was "amazed" to see the Cassini name on the J.C. Penney website and stating that the mattress company does not have the right to use the "Cassini or Oleg Cassini" trademarks.

Serta responded by discontinuing the model immediately, but this was not enough for Cassini, the complaint contends. Cassini proceeded to demand that J.C. Penney ensure that no floor models (including close-outs) be sold under the Cassini name. In addition, Cassini threatened to sue for infringement if it did not receive "a reasonable offer of damages and a detailed plan for correcting the improper usage of the Cassini mark." Instead of offering to pay damages, Serta filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the Northern District of Illinois seeking a judicial ruling of non-infringement.

Serta's attorneys argue that Cassini "has no federal or common law trademark rights in the name "Cassini" in connection with mattress and/or bedding products" and that "there simply is no evidence that consumers were or would be confused as to the source, origin, affiliation or sponsorship of the Serta PERFECT DAY Cassini mattress model or that consumers would believe there was some connection with Oleg Cassini or his clothing or perfume line."

Timelines, Inc., a small Chicago-based Internet company, has lost the first round of its legal efforts to obtain a court finding that Facebook infringed on its "Timelines" trademark when it announced its much-ballyhooed new feature, "Timeline."

On Sept. 22, 2011, Facebook announced the "Timeline" feature, which will allow users to store and share their life events in chronological order on the site. Timelines, Inc., quickly filed a trademark infringement suit against Facebook, noting that it already has a registered trademark for the term "Timelines." This mark refers, among other things, to a website that allows users to record and share events and contribute descriptions, photos, videos, geographic locations, and links related to events and people.

Arguing that there was a significant likelihood of confusion between its existing online product and the one just announced by Facebook, Timelines filed its lawsuit in order to avoid, in the words of the complaint, "being rolled over and quite possibly eliminated by the unlawful action of the world's largest and most powerful social media company."

Timelines sought a temporary restraining order against Facebook's use of the term "Timelines," but on September 30, 2011, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang denied the request. "Even assuming that Timelines has some likelihood of success, based on the present state of the record,...that likelihood is modest, and the other factors warrant denying the motion," Judge Chang wrote. "One question on the likelihood of success is the strength of the Timelines mark."

The judge ruled that even though Timelines had indeed been granted a federal trademark, that trademark is likely a "descriptive" one, since it simply "describes the service provided by Timelines' website, that is the creation on a website of a timeline for an event." Such "descriptive" trademarks are generally considered weak and do not enjoy the same protection as arbitrary or "fanciful" trademarks. The judge noted that if Timelines were to succeed in the litigation, it "would have to show that the term 'Timelines' has acquired a secondary meaning to customers such that they uniquely associate the term with the Plaintiff. On the current record, it is not at all clear that Timelines can make that showing."

Timelines may still be able to prove infringement, however, by focusing on the similarity between Timelines' website and Facebook's Timeline service. Consumers may be confused if the two services have the same name and do essentially the same thing.

Pincher's Crab Shack, a restaurant chain with seven locations in Southwest Florida, is taking on fast-food giant Wendy's in a trademark lawsuit. In a case filed in federal court on July 12, 2011, Pincher's asserts that Wendy's has stolen its trademarked slogan, "You Can't Fake Fresh," and used it in its advertising on television, radio, and the Internet. Wendy's actions "are likely to cause public confusion, mistake, or deception, and constitute trademark infringement," Pincher's attorneys wrote in their complaint, which alleges infringement, unfair competition, and false statements of origin under both federal and Florida law. Pincher's is seeking more than $2 million in damages.

"Defendants have openly and actively engaged in the unauthorized, infringing, unlicensed, and imitative use of the exact same trademark registered exclusively to Plaintiff, namely YOU CAN'T FAKE FRESH for the exact same services protected in Plaintiff's federal registration, namely 'restaurant services,' in the exact same geographic area in which Plaintiff uses its Mark, in commercial advertising and in exact and direct competition with Plaintiff," wrote Pincher's attorney Jennifer Whitelaw of Naples, Fla., in the complaint. Whitelaw was also quoted in the press as saying, "It's a great trademark. Our client worked hard to create it and our legal team worked hard to protect it and to successfully register it. From there, apparently it caught the eye of another suitor. Admiring our client's mark is understandable, but this is a bit more admiration than what the law allows."

Slogans are protectable under federal trademark law, provided they are used in such a way as to identify and distinguish the trademark owner's goods and services from those of others. Because the touchstone for liability in any trademark action is the likelihood of confusion, however, trademark infringement does not necessarily occur where slogans serve a subsidiary role to a service provider's "main" trademark. In other words, if "You Can't Fake Fresh" is always preceded in advertising by either "Pincher's Crab Shack" or "Wendy's," it may be difficult to prove consumer confusion.

But Pincher's also seeks to recover for trademark dilution, which does not require proof of actual (or even likely) confusion. The lawsuit claims that the association of the slogan with Wendy's products, since they are not the "genuine article" of Pincher's and may be inferior to Pincher's food, will "continue to damage and dilute the goodwill" that Pincher's has developed regarding its food.

A U.S. district judge in Virginia has adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny a Minnesota man's motion to dismiss a trademark complaint against him in a case that centered around an automobile service center franchise, and to enter a judgment against the service center he operated in an amount to be determined by an accounting of its profits during the period it infringed the plaintiff's trademarks by using its logos after being denied franchisee status.

Precision Franchising LLC, a Virginia company, licenses an automobile service system and owns several associated trademarks. Precision permits its licensees to use its business methods and its marks. Motorscope, Inc., was one of Precision Franchising's franchisees. Lene Corporation, a Minnesota company with its principal place of business in Minnesota--a company that was wholly owned by Cary Lene-Tarango, the Minnesota businessman--attempted to purchase Motorscope's franchise and to assume Motorscope's rights and duties under the franchise agreement. Precision Franchising denied permission to Lene to make the purchase, finding that Lene's balance sheet did not show it to be financially sound.

Lene went ahead in any case and started to use Precision Franchising's trademarks as if it were indeed a franchisee. Since at no time was Lene a franchisee of Precision Franchising, Precision Franchising sued Lene and Tarango in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the Lanham Act for unfair competition and trademark infringement. Neither defendant filed an answer to the complaint. Tarango, however, filed a letter that was treated as a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him since he is located in Minnesota and had no significant contacts with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The magistrate judge, Thomas Rawles Jones Jr., as well as District Judge Anthony J. Trenga, found sufficient facts to assert personal jurisdiction over both defendants, in that Tarango had accessed Precision Franchising's proprietary electronic database, which is located in Virginia, and because Tarango sent an e-mail to a Precision Franchising employee, also located in Virginia, to follow up on such a request. These contacts were deemed sufficient to satisfy Virginia's long-arm statute.

In deciding to award damages against the service center, the court considered the following factors:

(1) whether the defendant had the intent to confuse or deceive, (2) whether sales have been diverted, (3) the adequacy of other remedies, (4) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting his rights, (5) the public interest in making the misconduct unprofitable, and (6) whether it is a case of palming off.

Finding that these factors weighed in favor of granting damages, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages "equal to Lene Corp.'s profits earned during the period it operated the service center and plaintiff's costs in bringing this action."

In a 63-page amended complaint filed on June 16, 2011, in federal court in San Jose, Apple Inc. is continuing to strongly press its contentions that Samsung Electronics Co.'s Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers infringe upon Apple's patents and trademarks for the iPhone and the iPad. In this new filing, Apple, which has long been known as a company that pursues its intellectual property claims vigorously, amplifies a complaint it filed a couple of months ago against Samsung.

"Instead of pursuing independent product development, Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple's innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple's valuable intellectual property rights," Apple's attorneys wrote in the new complaint. An Apple spokeswoman has been quoted as saying, "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

A key focus of Apple's concern is several design patents that it owns for various aspects of the iPhone and iPad. These design patents, Apple said in the complaint, "cover the unique and novel ornamental appearance of Apple's devices, which include features such as the black face, bezel, the matrix of application icons, and a rim surrounding a flat screen."

The iPhone, according to the complaint, has a distinctive shape and appearance -- including "a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners and a bottom row of colorful square icons set off from the other icons, which does not change as other pages of the user interface are viewed - which are the embodiment of Apple's innovative iPhone user interface." And this combination of elements "is distinctive and serves to identify Apple as the source of the iPhone products," the complaint says. Thus, the Samsung Galaxy products incorrectly leave the consumer with the impression that they are Apple products "based upon the design alone."

But what smartphone these days doesn't bear some resemblance to the iPhone? There are only so many ways to make a thin "bar" form-factor phone capable of running various applications. Do Apple's design patents give it the right to exclude all others from the market? We will be following this case closely.

A new line of women's footwear now being sold by Yves Saint-Laurent has high-end French shoe designer Christian Louboutin seeing red. Louboutin's companies, asserting that a new line of red Yves Saint-Laurent shoes violates their U.S. trademark, recently filed a trademark infringement suit in federal court in Manhattan against YSL. The lawsuit raises the interesting question: can a color be trademarked?

Louboutin's trademark lawyers explain that the issue isn't about ownership of a color so much as whether a shoe designer can have a proprietary interest in the use of distinctive red soles. According to the complaint, Louboutin first thought of the idea of painting the outer soles of his shoes red in 1992. Ever since then--for nearly two decades--every shoe in his collection has had that distinctive stylistic feature.

"Louboutin Footwear is instantly recognizable as a result of Plaintiffs' trademark red outsole," the complaint declares. "The location of the bright color on the outsole of a woman's pump is said to provide an alluring 'flash of red' when a woman walks down the street, or on the red carpet of a special event." The complaint provides a long list of celebrities who have worn the shoes and even includes two photos of the Carrie Bradshaw character on Sex and the City, played by Sarah Jessica Parker, wearing the shoes with the "alluring flash of red."

Louboutin applied for a U.S. trademark for the "lacquered red sole" and received a trademark in 2008. According to the complaint, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office found that the mark "had acquired distinctiveness based on its many years of continuous use in commerce," consumer recognition, and media attention.

The Supreme Court has held that under some circumstances, a color can be trademarked. To win its case, Louboutin will need to show that red outsoles are associated with his design company by most women's high-end shoe purchasers. In other words, he will need to show that the red soles have acquired "secondary meaning" in the minds of his customers and prospective customers. (Think of brown delivery trucks. You associate them with UPS, right? That's a trademark.)

Louboutin will also need to show that the red color is not "functional" but decorative. The idea here is that no one manufacturer should be able to monopolize the use of a color that is an integral part of the way the product works (orange flotation devices, for example). It is not clear how the so-called "aesthetic functionality" test will apply to high-fashion items like shoes that cost more than $1,000 a pair.

Lacoste Alligator, S.A., which sells tennis shirts and other apparel with the distinctive green crocodile logo in high-end stores like Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue, will get a chance to find out, through discovery in a lawsuit, which of its distributors (if any) have been selling its products to Costco and other warehouse stores without its express permission, in violation of its trademark rights and in breach of contract.

Lacoste, a Swiss company, is attempting to prevent its clothing from being sold in big-box and other unauthorized retail locations. The first problem facing Lacoste, however, was that although it believed that some distributor was making sales to those stores, it didn't know who it was. Accordingly, it filed a "John Doe" complaint in Arlington County Circuit Court on trademark-infringement, breach of contract, and other grounds, hoping to use discovery in the case to ferret out the identity of the distributor responsible for the unauthorized sales. After filing the "John Doe" suit, Lacoste promptly served a subpoena on Costco Wholesale Corp., trying to ascertain the source from which it was receiving Lacoste products for resale in its stores. Costco objected to handing over any documents, and Lacoste filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.

Judge Joanne F. Alper overruled most of Costco's objections and held that Lacoste was entitled to the discovery subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order to prevent misuse of the information.

Costco had raised three objections to turning over the requested documents to Lacoste. First, Costco contended that the court lacked jurisdiction because it was pursuing a "John Doe" action without naming the defendant, a type of case that it asserted is permitted in Virginia only in uninsured motorist or "cybersmear" cases. Judge Alper, however, found nothing in Virginia law to bar the use of a "John Doe" suit in a commercial case like this one. Lawyers frequently use the "John Doe" lawsuit mechanism, in fact, when a defendant's identity is unknown.

Second, Costco contended that the identity of its suppliers is a protectable trade secret. The court agreed, but noted that trade secrets are not automatically insulated from discovery. Rather, courts should examine whether the desired information is relevant to the lawsuit and must consider whether the information can be disclosed while minimizing the risk of disclosure to third parties. Judge Alper found that the information was unquestionably relevant and that it could be disclosed within the confines of a protective order preserving its confidentiality.

The protective order also disposed of Costco's third argument: that the subpoena was overly broad and burdensome. The protective order limited Costco's obligation to comply with the subpoena to documents relevant only to the determination of John Doe's identity. Therefore, subject to the limitations provided in the protective order, the court ordered Costco to comply with the subpoena.

Apple Inc. has done very well with its App Store, a service that permits users to download programs of every type for use on their iPhones, iPods, iPads, and computers. With more than 350,000 software offerings, it's by far the largest place online for people to get hold of the programs they want for their Apple devices. Apple's trademark lawyers are now seeking to protect and enforce a trademark in the name "App Store," a phrase they claim exclusive rights to, by filing a lawsuit in federal court against Amazon.com. It claims Amazon's "Appstore" is infringing upon Apple's trademark. Amazon's activities, Apple alleges, are causing irreparable harm to Apple, and Apple is trying to get an injunction and damages from Amazon.

The case raises a lot of interesting issues. First, is the term "app store" even subject to trademark protection? Generic terms like "grocery store" and "shoe store" generally cannot be trademarked because they merely identify the product or service being offered. If an "app store" is merely a store that sells "apps," which is usually viewed as a shorthand term for computer applications or software, the courts may treat the term no differently than it would a proposed trademark for a "shoe store." In that case, Apple's efforts would fail.

On the other hand, Apple will no doubt contend that it has used the term "app store" exclusively since 2008 and has advertised it extensively - and thus that the term has acquired a "secondary meaning" under trademark law. That means that when consumers think of an "app store," they think of Apple's highly popular service. So if Amazon uses the term, the argument runs, consumers will come to the incorrect conclusion that Amazon's "app store" is identical with the Apple service, and Apple's business will be harmed.

There are some interesting twists here. First, it's not clear from the complaint whether Apple is claiming that "App" is actually a shortened form of its own name, "Apple." The two words certainly have a lot in common, yet it seems unlikely that many people would associate them with each other. Second, Apple doesn't have a registered U.S. trademark on the term "App Store," although its application for the mark was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Its efforts to trademark the term have at least temporarily been stymied by Microsoft, which has opposed the registration before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Among other things, Microsoft contends that the word is a generic term.

Finally, the absence of a registered U.S. trademark is probably not fatal to Apple's efforts. It still claims trademark infringement because of its extensive use of the mark in commerce. It also claims common-law trademark infringement as well as claims under California state law.

Ultimately, this battle of the tech giants may turn on what the evidence says about consumers' perception of the words "app store": Are these words inevitably connected in people's minds with Apple, or do they just give the common name of a well-known type of software service?

Does use of the name "Blingville" by a small game developer from Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, infringe the trademark rights of Zynga, creator of FarmVille? Does Zynga have a monopoly on Facebook applications ending in "ville"? Blingville has filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of West Virginia to find out.

Zynga's games have been extremely popular - and profitable - on Facebook in the last two years. The company says it has more than 295 million monthly active users on site for its six games -- CityVille, FarmVille, FishVille, FrontierVille, PetVille, and YoVille. Blingville is just getting started with commercializing its game. It says another company, Overtime Apps, registered the Blingville.com domain name in October 2004 and that in November 2010, it filed a trademark registration application for the use of the name. Then, according to Blingville, Overtime Apps assigned its rights in the trademark to Blingville.

When Zynga got wind of what Blingville was doing, it sent several cease-and-desist letters to Blingville, claiming trademark infringement and threatening to sue for alleged violations of the Lanham Act. "Use of the name," Zynga's deputy general counsel told an online magazine, "is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the fame and goodwill associated with Zynga's family of 'ville' games which includes FarmVille and CityVille. We are prepared to take all necessary steps to protect our intellectual property rights."

Not wanting to get sued in California, where Zynga is headquartered, Blingville took matters into its own hands and filed for declaratory relief in West Virginia, seeking a judicial declaration of non-infringement.

Assuming that the court first finds that the 2004 registration of the domain name didn't give Blingville full trademark rights to the use of the name for its social media game, the court will then need to look at the standards for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Zynga doesn't own the name "Blingville," but that doesn't end the inquiry. Under the Lanham Act, the central test for trademark infringement is whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the parties' respective products. Trademark infringement doesn't require actual confusion, though actual confusion is a relevant consideration.

Supporting Zynga's case are the arguments that Blingville is being prepared for distribution in the same Facebook channel as FarmVille and that the names of the games sound similar in that they are both two-syllable words ending in "ville." Favoring Blingville's position are the contentions that "bling" is in no way reminiscent of "farm," "city," "fish," or Zynga's other terms, and that the word "ville" should be seen as a generic term for a city or location, common to many languages, that cannot be trademarked.

Unless the case is settled, these matters will be left for a judge to sort out.

Lawyers around the country have come to learn of the Eastern District of Virginia's legendary "rocket docket." With divisions located in Alexandria, Norfolk, Richmond, and Newport News, Virginia's federal court is known as the most efficient in the country for handling intellectual property cases and complex business litigation. Also known for being friendly to business, trademark owners around the country often look for ways to establish venue in Virginia instead of a location closer to home where cases move at a slower pace. In the context of protecting trademark rights, one such opportunity can be found in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

The ACPA provides for a cause of action against those who register or use a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, the trademark of another. Enacted in 1999, the ACPA was designed to address the practice of "cybersquatting," which generally involves the practice of registering a domain name containing somebody else's name or trademark with the intention of either profiting from the resulting confusion or of selling the domain name to the less-Internet-savvy trademark owner. You could sue the individual in the jurisdiction of his residence, but what if that person lives in the District of Minnesota, one of the slowest federal courts in the country? Or what if the registrant took steps to shield his identity when registering the domain name and you can't determine whom to sue?

One option available to you is to sue the domain name itself. And because VeriSign--the world's largest registry and operator of the .com and .net top-level domains--is located in Dulles, Virginia, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia, there is a good chance you can bring that action in the Rocket Docket, regardless of where the actual registrant resides.

MetroPark, a fashion clothing store incorporated in Delaware and based in Los Angeles, successfully utilized this procedure in recent weeks and obtained a judgment against metropark.net in Virginia's highly efficient federal court. MetroPark's online store is located at metroparkusa.com. On October 2, 2009, a registrant registered metropark.net and, shortly thereafter, put up a website at that domain advertising clothing and accessories substantially identical to and in direct competition with the goods and services offered by MetroPark.

MetroPark identified the individual as someone with a history of cybersquatting, and who is the current registrant of multiple domain names that mimic famous trademarks of third-parties, such as bankofamericaa.com, dicksportinggood.com, abcnewschicago.com, and officedeppotcom.com. Rather than sue the individual directly, MetroPark sued the domain name itself. The court recognized the validity of this procedure, writing "Pursuant to the Lanham Act, '[t]he owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located'" provided that the domain name is violative of the trademark provisions of the Lanham Act.

The Court found that metropark.net was being used in a way likely to cause confusion or mistake, as Internet users looking for MetroPark's site might come across metropark.net and, if they did, would likely to be deceived into believing that the site is affiliated with MetroPark. The ACPA is designed to remedy this very situation. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended (and the district judge ordered) that VeriSign, the operator of the registry of the metropark.net domain name, transfer the domain name from the current registrar, Moniker Online Services, to a domain registrar of MetroPark's choosing, and that such registrar thereafter register the domain name in MetroPark's name.

Access Designs, Inc., a company that manufactures TubcuT®, a product that alters regular bathtubs to convert them into walk-in showers, has filed a trademark-infringement suit against The BathWorks Company in federal district court in Charlottesville, Virginia. According to the allegations of the Complaint, two former representatives of Access Designs, Greg and Ellen Murphy, formed BathWorks in Rhode Island and began selling a product similar to TubcuT® and marketing it under the name "Tubcut" or "Tubcuts", creating a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace with respect to the origin of the customized bathtubs.

The suit is based on the provisions of the Lanham Act that govern trademark infringement and unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a). To win on both allegations, Access Designs must prove three things: (1) that its mark is valid, (2) that The BathWorks Company's use of the mark is unauthorized, and (3) that BathWorks' use of the mark is likely to cause customers to be confused.

Access Designs has a little bit of a head start in that TubcuT® is registered with the Patent and Trademark Office, as registered marks carry a presumption of validity. The key issue in the case is likely to be whether BathWorks is using a mark that is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of the parties' respective products. To determine the likelihood of consumer confusion, courts generally consider factors such as (1) the strength of plaintiff's mark; (2) the relatedness or "proximity" of the parties' goods or services; (3) similarity of the parties' marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers; (7) the defendant's intent in selecting the mark; and (8) the likelihood of expansion of product lines.

Whether or not Access Designs can prove its allegations at trial remains to be seen.

The Internet has been a boon to business. It brought local economies into the global market, cut down on communications costs, and made accessible information that was once only available through painstaking research. That is not to say, however, that the technology has not had its drawbacks. Towards the end of the 1990's, peer-to-peer file sharing websites became a haven for piracy of software, music, and movies. At first, those perpetrating these crimes were only a small segment of society, but gradually the practice became more widely accepted and piracy became prevalent in nearly every demographic. Various industries took notice and scrambled to fight back. Many are familiar with the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) resort to the courts to sue and force settlements with those who share music over the Internet. While the RIAA pioneered this strategy, many companies are now following suit by filing suit. One such case was filed recently by Saregama India, Ltd., the biggest recording company in India, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Saregama discovered that many of its songs, popular both in India and among the Indian population in the United States, are being made available as ringtones on a website called Dishant.com. Saregama alleges that Dishant.com and its owners, Dishant Shah and Meeta Shah, violated Saregama's copyrights because they never bought the rights to these songs nor received approval from Saregama to share the songs as ringtones. Further, Saregama claims that Dishant.com displayed Saregama logos next to the titles of the songs, which would be a trademark violation.

Under the Copyright Act, the right to distribute copies of copyrighted work, or to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work, belongs solely to the copyright owner. Under the Act, if Saregama can prove that the materials provided by Dishant.com are identical to or substantially identical to any property owned by Saregama, and that Dishant.com provided those materials without permission, then Saregama's burden will be met. The consequences for a copyright violation can be substantial. If Saregama prevails, it may be entitled to recover any profits Dishant.com made from the use of the songs (or statutory damages up to $150,000 if the infringement was willful), plus reimbursement of its attorneys' fees.

The trademark aspect of Saregama's suit is based on the Lanham Act, the primary source of federal trademark law in the United States. The use of another's trademark in connection with the sale of a product constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the product or as to the sponsorship or approval of the product. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; and (7) the defendant's intent. Trademark violations can be costly as well. Under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), a successful plaintiff may be entitled to defendant's profits, damages sustained by the plaintiff, and reimbursement of the costs of the action (including reasonable attorneys' fees in "exceptional cases"). Damages may be trebled upon showing of bad faith.

If you own rights to a trademark or copyright that is being infringed by another, don't wait for an industry trade group to bring legal action on your behalf. Consult an intellectual property attorney and find out whether action is needed to protect your business assets.

"Once You Know, You Newegg." That is the slogan and registered trademark of Newegg, a popular online retailer of consumer electronics and high-tech products. Department-store chain Kohl's recently began using a similar tagline: "The More You Know, the More You Kohl's." On May 14th, Newegg filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit in California seeking to enjoin further use of the similar slogan.

A combination of words used in commerce as a slogan is protectable as a trademark if used to identify and distinguish the source of products or services. Use of a registered slogan by others can be prohibited if there is a likelihood of confusion among the consuming public. Newegg's action essentially claims that Newegg has a property interest in the "Once You Know, You Newegg" slogan, which it built up at great expense, and that the slogan has become associated in the minds of consumers with "an unsurpassed shopping experience, rapid delivery, and stellar customer service." According to the lawsuit, Kohl's, having full knowledge of Newegg's trademarks and intending to siphon off some of the goodwill associated therewith, began using a deceptively similar slogan in a manner likely to cause direct financial harm to Newegg.

As with most trademark and unfair competition cases, the big question is going to be whether Newegg can prove a likelihood of confusion. Among the more questionable allegations of the lawsuit are those claiming that Kohl's "attempted to increase traffic to their website by diverting users looking for Newegg's website" and that confused Newegg customers "visit Kohl's website believing it to be Newegg's website." As suggested by the trademarked slogan itself, Newegg believes its customers are intelligent and savvy -- that is why they shop at Newegg. Are these the same people who are going to wind up at Kohl's website when looking for Newegg, and who are going believe, once they have landed at Kohl's site, that they have indeed found Newegg? What kind of customer wouldn't include the term "Newegg" in an online search for Newegg?

Another weakness is the prominent use of the respective companies' primary marks embedded within the slogans, greatly lessening the likelihood of confusion. In other words, while "the more you know" is undoubtedly similar to "once you know," once you reach the operative word in the slogan (Newegg or Kohl's), it's difficult to remain confused about the identity of the retailer.

Still, Newegg may have a legitimate complaint in that consumers may erroneously assume, due to the similarity of the slogans, that Newegg and Kohl's have formed an affiliation. While primarily known for its electronics, Newegg has been branching out and expanding its offerings to household products such as those found in department stores like Kohl's. Newegg's strongest claim, in my view, is not for infringement but for trademark dilution, a theory that would entitle Newegg to an injunction if Kohl's new slogan would blur or tarnish the strength of Newegg's famous slogan. For dilution claims, actual or likely confusion is not required.