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).

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)).

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).

Secalt S. A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Machinery Co. , 668 F 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

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.