Transcript Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement

LAIPLA TRADEMARK BOOTCAMP:
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN NINTH CIRCUIT
LANHAM ACT LAW
• Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement
• Trade Dress – Protectability – Functionality
Brent D. Sokol
October 24, 2013
Secondary Liability for
Trademark Infringement
• Unlike the DMCA statute, there are no safe harbor
provisions with respect to trademark infringement claims.
See Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates, 135 F.Supp.2d 409, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing
proposition); IQ Group, Ltd. v. Wiesner Pub., LLC, 409 F. Supp. 2d 587, 592 (D.N.J. 2006)
(citing proposition).
• Online service providers may be held liable for contributory
trademark infringement, inducement of trademark
infringement, and vicarious trademark infringement.
See Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d
1124, 2011 ILRC 2633 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming jury verdict of contributory infringement
by entities operating servers and hosting websites used to sell infringing goods); Chloe SAS
v. Sawabeh Info. Servs. Co., Case No. 2:11-cv-04147-GAF-MAN, 2013 BL 286656 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 08, 2013) (granting summary judgment of contributory infringement by internet
companies’ websites used to sell infringing goods); Tiffany, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 2004 WL
14133904 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (contributory infringement claim in suit through pre-trial
conference).
2
Contributory Liability for
Trademark Infringement
• Trademark owner must establish the defendant has
“continued to supply an infringing product to an infringer
with knowledge that the infringer is mislabeling the
particular product supplied.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n, 494
F.3d 788, 807 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855,
102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982)).
• Where the defendant provides services rather than a
product, defendant must also have “direct control and
monitoring of the instrumentality used by a third party to
infringe.” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 100
U.S.P.Q.2d 1124, 2011 ILRC 2633 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network
Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 1999)).
3
Trade Dress – Protectability –
Functionality
• If trade dress is unregistered, Plaintiff also has the burden of showing
non-functionality of the trade dress.
• If registered, Defendant has burden of proof on functionality
• Defendant can cancel an incontestable registration based on
functionality
• Traffix test: Whether the trade dress is “essential to the use or purpose
of the article or it affects the cost or quality of the article”; availability
of alternate designs for a useful feature is relevant. Valu Engineering v.
Rexnord, 278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (TTAB Appeal).
• See Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Machinery Co., 668 F.3d 677, 101
U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 (9th Cir. 2012); Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, Inc. v.
Lubecore Intl., Inc., 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1022 (6th Cir. 2013).
4
Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Machinery Co.,
668 F.3d 677, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 (9th Cir. 2012)
Tractel “tirak” Hoist
Jiangsu Hoist
5
Trade Dress – Functionality
• A determination of functionality usually involves consideration of
one or more of the following factors:
– The existence of a utility patent that discloses the
utilitarian advantages of the design sought to be
registered (existence of design patent weighs against
finding of functionality);
– Advertising by the applicant that touts the utilitarian
advantages of the design;
– Facts pertaining to availability of alternative designs;
– Facts pertaining to whether the design results from
comparatively simple or inexpensive method of
manufacture.
6