1. Trademark Year in Review (2004): Overview of Litigation and Legislative Developments Boston Bar Association January 20, 2005 Julia Huston, Esq. (617) 443-9292 ext 264 jhuston@bromsun.com

2. Developments in the Supreme Court

3. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 125 S.Ct. 542 (2004) District court found MICROCOLOR for permanent makeup to be fair use District court found MICROCOLOR for permanent makeup to be fair use Ninth Circuit reversed Ninth Circuit reversed Supreme Court reversed and remanded Supreme Court reversed and remanded

4. Defendant need not prove a lack of likelihood of confusion Defendant need not prove a lack of likelihood of confusion However, some likelihood of confusion factors may bear on fair use However, some likelihood of confusion factors may bear on fair use  Intent to adopt another’s mark suggests lacks of good faith fair use  Actual confusion suggests that defendant may not be using in descriptive manner, but as a trademark

5. Developments in the First Circuit

6. Beacon Mut. Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Group, 376 F.3d 8 (1 st Cir. 2004) ONEBEACON and BEACON MUTUAL marks for worker compensation insurance services ONEBEACON and BEACON MUTUAL marks for worker compensation insurance services  Caused actual confusion among injured workers, health care workers, third party insurers, and attorneys  No actual confusion among purchasers (employer)

7. Reversed summary judgment for defendant Reversed summary judgment for defendant  Infringement caused actual confusion among those in a position to influence sales and others, and therefore harmed plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation

8. Author Names as Trademarks Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2004) Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2004)  No secondary meaning in name among book purchasers

9. Zyla v. Wadsworth, 360 F.3d 243 (1st Cir. 2004) Zyla v. Wadsworth, 360 F.3d 243 (1st Cir. 2004)  False attribution of authorship actionable under copyright law

10. Intra-company shipments from U.S. to U.K. followed by overseas sales do not constitute “use in commerce” Intra-company shipments from U.S. to U.K. followed by overseas sales do not constitute “use in commerce” One party’s decreasing contacts with the U.S. and failure to assert ownership of the mark for over a decade resulted in abandonment of the mark. One party’s decreasing contacts with the U.S. and failure to assert ownership of the mark for over a decade resulted in abandonment of the mark. General Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat, 364 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2004)

11. Developments in Other Circuits

12. Likelihood of Confusion Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Comm. Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Comm. Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)  Netscape “keyed” to banner ads  Summary judgment to Netscape reversed  Initial interest confusion actionable in Ninth Circuit

13. Trade Dress Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc., 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004) Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc., 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004)  Cowprint trade dress protectable Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distrib., LLC, 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004) (cert. petition filed November 10, 2004) Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distrib., LLC, 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004) (cert. petition filed November 10, 2004)  Beaded design of ice cream not protectable

14. Dilution Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)  Prospective application of FTDA affirmed  Fame must be measured as of date of defendant’s first diluting use

15. Savin Corp. v. The Savin Group, 391 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004) Savin Corp. v. The Savin Group, 391 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004)  Use of identical marks give rise to presumption of actual dilution  SAVIN could be famous for office support services

16. New Dilution Legislation? Likelihood of dilution, not actual dilution, standard Likelihood of dilution, not actual dilution, standard Acquired distinctiveness qualifies Acquired distinctiveness qualifies No more “niche fame” No more “niche fame” Tarnishment actionable Tarnishment actionable

17. Fair Use and Nominative Fair Use Defenses Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums Inc., 381 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2004) Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums Inc., 381 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2004)  Use of KIRBY for vacuum cleaners by unauthorized dealer permissible

18. Bumble Bee Seafoods, L.L.C. v. UFS Indus. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1684 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Bumble Bee Seafoods, L.L.C. v. UFS Indus. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1684 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)  Use of BUMBLEE BEE TUNA by maker of tuna salad permissible

19. Descriptiveness and Genericness FREEBIES held generic FREEBIES held generic  Retail Services Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, 364 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2004) PATENTS.COM held descriptive PATENTS.COM held descriptive  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004) LAWOFFICE.NET held descriptive LAWOFFICE.NET held descriptive  DeGidio v. West Group Corp., 355 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct 2842

20. Use of Personal Names as Marks BRENNAN’S weak, no distinctiveness in New York City BRENNAN’S weak, no distinctiveness in New York City  Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurant, L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004) NILES the camel protectable NILES the camel protectable  Peacable Planet Inc. v. Ty Inc., 362 F.3d 986 (7th Cir.) (2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct 275 (2004)

21. Developments in Massachusetts

22. No preliminary injunction for BAYSTATE No preliminary injunction for BAYSTATE No acquired distinctiveness despite use since 1895 No acquired distinctiveness despite use since 1895 Different services Different services  Savings bank services  Investment and insurance services Baystate Savings Bank v. Baystate Financial Services, LLC, 338 F.Supp.2d 181 (D. Mass. 2004) (Gorton, J.)

23. Converse Inc. v. Reebok International, Ltd., 328 F.Supp.2d 166 (D. Mass. 2004) (Lindsay, J.) Denied motion for contempt Denied motion for contempt Sanctioned plaintiff for bringing motion Sanctioned plaintiff for bringing motion Reebok’s use of the mark ALL-STAR in the phrase NBA DOWNTIME ALL- STAR GRAFFITI Reebok’s use of the mark ALL-STAR in the phrase NBA DOWNTIME ALL- STAR GRAFFITI

24. Consent decree covered ALL-STAR and all Converse trademarks Consent decree covered ALL-STAR and all Converse trademarks  “So as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to source”  Failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d)

25. What to Watch for in 2005

26. Trademark Infringement Cases

27. Ken’s Foods, Inc. v. Ken’s Steak House, Inc. (Judge Gertner)

30. Zone Perfect Nutrition Company v. Hershey Foods Corp., Hershey Chocolate & Confectionary Corp., and Barry D. Sears (Judge Stearns)

32. Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Beat the House, LLC (Judge Tauro)

34. False Advertising Cases

35. Vermont Pure Holdings LTD v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc. and Nestle SA (Judge Woodlock)

37. First Act Inc. v. Brook Mays Music Company, Inc. (Judge Harrington)

39. McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. (SDNY)

41. Closing Thoughts

42. Trademark Year in Review (2004): Overview of Litigation and Legislative Developments Boston Bar Association January 20, 2005 Julia Huston, Esq. (617) 443-9292 ext 264 jhuston@bromsun.com