Letter from AmeriKat: From Sea to Shining Sea

The AmeriKat was travelling again this past week. Irrespective of the past 25 years of frequent flying transatlantic-ally, continentally, transpacific-ally, and more, she is always surprised to find herself in a completely new location after seemingly no time at all. Leaving behind one established life and role and trading it in for a new role, set of contacts and friends has always given the AmeriKat a bit of a thrill. She can discard her "American lawyer in London" role when she steps off the plane in Dallas and just be someone welcomed home by immigration officials. Entering immigration in other ports her role is constantly transformed by a stamp in the passport to tourist, visiting family, attending a conference, here for business, or "living and working here". The only constant in these travels, from country to country and coast to coast, is her trusty Coach luggage, who has seen her across hundreds of thousands of miles, over-head bins and immigration authorities and is the subject of her first story this week.

Jo-Ann Fabrics sued for infringing fabric by Coach

In most isolated strip malls in U.S. cities from sea to shining sea, usually in between a dry-cleaners and a cell-phone retailer, is a Jo-Ann Fabrics where soccer-moms, crafters, and all in between go to purchase a multitude of fabrics, zippers, buttons and threads. Last Monday, Jo-Ann Fabrics was sued for trade mark, trade dress and copyright infringement in Chicago federal court by New York-based high-end leather goods manufacturer and AmeriKat favorite, Coach. Coach is complaining about a fleece fabric being sold by Jo-Ann Fabrics in store and on-line which is infringing Coach's signature "C" trade mark, associated trade dress rights and copyright in the signature "C" trade mark design (picture, right). Coach is asking the court for $2 million per each infringing mark, additional damages, attorney fees, and an injunction restraining future sales of the infringing product.

The "C" trade mark and insignia is on several of Coach's signature lines of bags, wallets, belts, shoes, hats, scarves and the lining therein and was registered as a U.S. trade mark in September 2002. You can even spot the AmeriKat in Holborn by the violet Coach scarf with the trade mark double "C" pattern that she carries on her Coach bag. However, the "C" insignia and pattern is a prime target for counterfeiters and counterfeit Coach bags (see AmeriKat report on previous action taken by Coach in Chicago) and the market is rife with copycats. According to the complaint Coach sells more than $3 billion products annually and has filed more than 500 trade mark infringement suits since 2010.

According to the complaint the fabric (picture, left) was designed and supplied to Jo-Ann Fabric by the named co-defendant, Feldman Co. and together with Jo-Ann Fabric are accused by Coach of trying to benefit from the "incalcuable goodwill" associated with Coach's C trade mark by selling the allegedly infringing fabric. Coach also argue that consumers will be confused as to the source of the fabric - the AmeriKat does not disagree, but there are some differences between the two fabrics. The "C"s on Jo-Ann's Fabric fabric are almost closed, looking more like "O"s than the clearly differentiated "C"s on Coach's fabric. The AmeriKat believes these differences not to be fatal and also believes that although a consumer would be able to recognize the difference after closer study of the fabric, initial interest confusion is nevertheless present.

Had the Amerikat seen the fabric in a Jo-Ann's Fabrics store her immediate reaction would first be "Why is Coach allowing their signature print fabric to be sold in Jo-Ann's Fabrics?"- a reaction that goes first to the pure dilution argument as argued by the complaint. Her next reaction would be one dealing with tarnishment of the mark - "Why is Coach allowing their signature print fabric to be printed on fleece and sold in Jo-Ann fabrics?". As far as the AmeriKat knows from the Coach range, they have never used their signature print on fleece - a fabric that is not associated with the up-market silk and leather ranges produced by Coach. Of note Jo-Ann Fabrics does sell fabrics with trade mark names and logos, namely for major league sports teams such as the New York Yankees and licensed fabrics from Disney. The AmeriKat does not anticipate this case going all that far and expects it to settle quite quickly given the similarity of the designs and strength of reputation in Coach's mark, however it acts as a warning to fabric buyers not to skate so closely to the edge of trade mark infringement.

Organic farmers sue Monsanto over genetically modified seeds

From Illinois to New York now. Two weeks ago, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a non-for profit legal services organization based out of the Cardozo School of Law, filed a pre-emptive lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on behalf of 60 plaintiff family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations against agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto challenging their patents on genetically modified seed. The lawsuit was pre-emptive in order to protect the class from anticipated patent infringement suits should their crops ever be contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed. The AmeriKat has read about the 60 plaintiffs and noted that they included three farmers and seed producers from her home state of New Mexico, Chispas Farms, in Albuquerque, Jardin del Alma from Monticello and farmer Paul Romero from Espanola - a reminder that patent litigation does not just impact big businesses in Silicon Valley, but your neighbors.

PUBPAT's Executive Director and law lecturer at the Cardozo School of Law, Dan Ravicher, stated that the case

"asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed should land on their property. It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed should be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients."

For anyone who has seen Food, Inc., you will be aware about such legal issues involving Monsanto (click here for an excerpt of Food, Inc. about Monsanto) and the case of Percy Schmeiser. Genetically modified seed are alleged to contaminate and destroy organic seeds when they enter organic crops. Further, legally speaking, as with what happened with Schmeiser, when genetically modified seed enters a neighbouring crop and grows and/or cross pollinates with a farmer's crop the farmer can be held to be infringing the patent of that seed. PUBPAT is thus asking the court to declare that if organic farmers are contaminated by Monsanto's seed they need not fear of being threatened with patent infringement proceedings.

PUBPAT are also arguing that Monsanto's genetically modified patents for seeds are invalid because they do not meet the "usefulness" criteria under section 101 of the Patent Act. An invention is "useful" under section 101 if it is capable of providing some identifiable benefit. The complaint cites Justice Story's dicta in Lowell v Lewis (1817) which stated that inventions that are "injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society" are unpatentable. Ravicher's argument is that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, and the promised benefits and usefulness of the seed, namely increased production and decreased herbicide use, are false. (picture, right - alfalfa)

Monsanto stated that the lawsuit was a "publicity stunt" and that Monsanto is committed to never suing farmers over the inadvertent presence of their genetically modified seed in their fields - (the AmeriKat wonders how does one even prove or disprove inadvertent presence of GM seeds?) Monsanto also stated that the validity of their patents was without question and supported by legal precedent. Monsanto stated that:

"The plaintiffs' approach is a publicity stunt designed to confuse the facts about American agriculture. These efforts seek to reduce private and public investment in the development of new higher-yielding seed technologies. This attack comes at a time when the world needs every agricultural tool available to meet the needs of a growing population, expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050. While we respect the views of organic farmers as it relates to the products they choose to grow, we don't believe that American agriculture faces an all-or-nothing approach."

The suit comes soon after the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) fully deregulated genetically modified strains of alfalfa. The USDA has also allowed farmers to plant genetically modified sugar beets without restrictions while it completes its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on that crop. The timing of the lawsuit suggests that the plaintiffs groups may feel that the time is right to take action before an increasing number of GM crops are deregulated by the USDA and before the alleged impacts of GM crops on organic crops become more serious.

The AmeriKat will be watching this fight with anticipation. Although it is unlikely that PUBPAT will be able to create much of a dent in such a powerful organization, like Monsanto, she is interested in any attempt to try to address the balance of power created by the patent system in the agricultural industry. But what do readers think - is it a hopeless publicity stunt, or are the invalidity arguments with merit?

The AmeriKat recommends this recent interesting article by Anna Lappe in The Atlantic about the issues surrounding GM, Monsanto and food production.

Byrne settles with Crist over Talking Heads song use

From New York, we fly south to Florida where Florida's former Governor Charlie Crist settled (picture, left) a copyright infringement lawsuit last week brought against him by Talking Heads' David Byrne after Crist used the 1985 Talking Heads's song "Road to Nowhere" in a political attack ad during his Senate campaign last year. Crist's campaign failed to seek permission from Byrne, the Talking Heads or Warner Brothers when they used the song in the Senate campaign video published on YouTube attacking Crist's Republican opposition, Marco Rubio. Byrne sued Crist for $1 million. Byrne said last year that the lawsuit was

"not about politics...It's about copyright and about the fact that it does imply that I would have licensed it and endorsed him and whatever he stands for."

Rubio himself was also on criticized for using The Steve Miller Band's "Take the Money and Run" in an attack ad against Crist. Rubio, however, was not sued. AmeriKat readers may recall past political song problems, such as in 2008 when Jackson Browne sued then presidential candidate John McCain for unauthorized use of his song "Running on Empty". Browne's lawyer, Lawrence Iser, also represented Byrne and stated in the initial complaint that it was "extraordinary" for another Republican campaign to misappropriate another artists's work without permission.

Another lesson that party politics and rock music do not mix.

Letter from AmeriKat I: Good Day Sunshine (TMs and ©)

The AmeriKat has been watching the English public embrace the change of the season this week. On Friday she slinked outside for her midday patrol and perched on a bench in Gray's Inn, with the new Vogue in paw. (picture, left - the AmeriKat taking a much needed lunchtime Kat nap) Like spring flowers, once the temperature rises above a certain level the English bloom onto any stretch of grass available to them. A sea of students, solicitors, lawyers and miscellaneous office workers were scattered about in the sections of Gray's Inn grass that was unspoilt by any appearance of shade. Once modest workwear suits, worn by males and females alike, were stripped of any sweaters, cufflinks and buttons to expose as much square footage of skin as possible, laughter was echoing off the Inn's buildings, people were chatting with their neighbors, and a general feeling of calm settled throughout. The AmeriKat even spied some IP barristers from 11 South Square joining in on the emergence of spring. There is something about warmer weather in England that makes the general public a little less guarded than normal, in both physical appearance and mentality, which can only ever be welcome.

Louboutin sees red with Yves Saint Laurent

Someone who has seemed to let their guard down, in least where trade mark infringement claims are concerned, is Yves Saint Laurent who last Thursday was sued in Manhattan federal court by the one and only Christian Louboutin. Louboutin is famous for his footwear recognizable by the casual observer by its trade mark red sole. The story goes that one of Louboutin's customers was wearing an amazing red nail polish on her nails which Louboutin adored. She had the coveted nail color in her bag, took it out and Louboutin painted his first sole with the red nail polish. The violent red-lacquered sole would later become his signature maker's mark and would be granted a US trade mark in 2008 (picture, right - Louboutin's famous heel).

Louboutin is now alleging that since January Yves Saint Laurent America, a subsidiary of the Gucci Group, is selling their shoes with the same red sole in store throughout Manhattan. Louboutin's complaint argues that Yves Saint Laurent's use of the red sole is "likely to cause and is causing confusion, mistake and deception among the relevant purchasing public." Louboutin is claiming for $1 million in damages and an injunction to stop Yves Saint Laurent (picture, left) from manufacturing the shoes. Interestingly, Louboutin apprenticed with Yves Saint Laurent in the late 1980s before setting up his own brand.

The AmeriKat is curious, as any Kat should be, to know what evidence of actual confusion (as stated by the complaint to be occurring) Louboutin has. Unlike in the UK, under section 1114 of the Lanham Act US trade mark owners have to prove that the defendant's use of their mark confused consumers. In the Second Circuit, which includes New York, the factors for the test for confusion is that as laid down in the Polaroid Corp v Polarad Elecs. Corp (1961) case. The AmeriKat sets out these factors below with some comments in laden ladenfam's signature comment red:

1. The strength of the mark, i.e. the red soles - It is somewhat undeniable that Louboutin's red soles have indeed become well-recognized as a trade mark for his shoes in the market.
2. The degree of similarity between the two marks - Identical - in so far as they are both red outersoles
3. The proximity of the products and services - Identical - they are both shoes, being sold in the same stores, probably right next to or near each other
4. The likelihood that the senior user will "bridge the gap" into the junior user's product service line - if there even is a 'gap' it is very likely because they are competitors
5. Evidence of actual confusion between the marks - Always hard to come by, but perhaps Louboutin has some faithful customers who will be able to attest to some initial interest confusion?
6. Whether the Yves Saint Laurent adopted the mark in good faith
7. The quality of the Yves Saint Laurent's products - the AmeriKat would love to see Louboutin allege that YSL's products are of a lesser quality, but the fact that they are not and are side-by-side competitors actually makes it more difficult for YSL to squirm out of this one because there is more chance of there being actual, likely or initial-interest confusion.
8. The sophistication of the parties customers -If someone is in the market for $400-$4,000 shoes, one would think you would pay particular attention in knowing what shoe and from whom you were buying, however again, initial interest confusion may be the savior in this confusion battle.

Confusion, as any trade mark lawyer knows in the US and the UK, is notoriously difficult to prove. However, in the US and now thanks to Arnold J in the UK, initial interest confusion is probably the saving grace for Louboutin. Given that the price points of parties' products are so high and the sophistication of the intended consumers is so developed, any confusion present regarding the origin of the shoes on behalf of the consumer is likely to be remedied prior to purchase. What do readers think? Is this an easy fight for Louboutin or does Yves Saint Laurent have it in the (Neiman Marcus) bag?

Need for Congress to address issues with Google Books lawsuit, Pallante says

The AmeriKat has been quiet about the Google Books Settlement, which some may find unusual considering how much she followed and wrote about the litigation (see previous reports here). In fact she even predicted when District Judge Denny Chin (picture, left) was going to issue his damning judgment (just ask @garethdickson). There is little she wishes to say right now about Judge Chin's judgment other than, in her opinion, it was the correct determination given that the revised settlement seemed even worse than the first and again did not adequately address the issue of orphan works, and Google could have saved itself a lot of bother had it been an "opt-in" class than an "opt-out" (albeit probably not as profitable). However, the issue spotlighted how important the issue of digitization of works is in copyright, be it literary or artistic.

Maria Pallante (picture, right), acting Register of Copyrights, feels the same. Last week she told an event hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce that lawmakers need to address the issue of whether the digitization of literary works should be a benefit for the public or become a profit-making endeavour. As reported by the Dow Jones Newswire, Pallante stated that

"The first issue is really, is mass digitization a national goal that Congress feels legislation is warranted for, and if so, for what beneficiaries."

She also stated that

"It isn't that universal libraries aren't important, but there's a difference between universal libraries and universal bookstores."

With orphan works are back where we started, says the AmeriKat, why can't the US government just once and for all pass a bill like the Shawn Bentley Bill? It would allow for digitization of orphan works, but if and when the owner came forward a reasonable royalty would be payable under statute provided the user undertook a reasonable search. Does it need to be more complicated than this? Of course, the problem encountered is that once that copy is digitized the person who digitized it can arguably exclude other digitized copies of the same book being made - thus some of the arguments against Google in the Google Books case. As long as it is clear that the mere digitization of a literary or artistic orphan work does not mean that the digitizer can exclude others from making their own digitized versions of the work, then such problems should not be encountered. But then again, how can this be done but by legislation?

More in Part II.

Letter from AmeriKat: Express's plaid pain in summary judgment for Forever 21

The AmeriKat is experiencing a mean blend of jet-lag and sleeplessness which is resulting in bouts of highly productive activities at odd hours in the morning. As a result, she has a little tail to share with her readers. A couple of weeks ago US District Judge Otis D. Wright issued his reasons for a summary judgment in favor of Forever21 in case brought against the fast fashion retailer by the clothing retailer and US shopping mall staple, Express, for copyright and trade dress infringement of a plaid design and track jacket respectively. Judge Wright held that although Express held registered copyrights for the four plaid fabric designs, they could not enforce them because the designer, Michael Tower, could not prove that his designs were sufficiently original to be protected. (picture, left - the AmeriKat sporting her latest plaid fashion)

To prove copyright infringement, the claimant has the burden of establishing that they own a valid copyright and the copying was of the elements in the claimant's work that were original (Feist Pubs v Rural Tel. Service (1991)). Tower's testimony failed to do this. The four plaids at issue - Bruin, Jack, Ocean and Roth - were designed by Express designer Michael Tower based on a preexisting plaid design that a CAD designer replicated on the Express's CAD system. Tower's testimony confirmed that each of the plaid designs were based on a previous source and were therefore derivative works. Copyright protection of derivative works only go so far as to protect the elements of the work that can be distinguished from the preexisting material. These modified elements can only be protected by copyright if they possess some minimal degree of creativity. Mere changes to color in a design are not protectable, as they can be under moral rights in France. Tower's testimony evidenced that Express had no proof of the design process or the modifications made to the earlier designs in creation of the new plaids. The Court also concluded that even if Express's copyright registrations were entitled to a presumptive effect (the main benefit of a US copyright registration), Tower's testimony rebutted that presumption (Folio Impressions v Byer (1991)).

Judge Wright, for the District Court for the Central District of California (which is part of the Ninth Circuit) further held that the trade dress claims over the track jacket was not protectable for reasons that the jacket was not recognizable to consumers as indicating its origin, nor was it massive seller for Express . Under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, whether it be for a trade mark claim or a trade dress claim, Express had to show that the jacket was distinctive, was non-functional and there was a likelihood of confusion between the Express jacket and Forever 21's (Kendall-Jackson Winery v E&J Gallo Winery (1998)). A design will have distinctiveness and protection when it can be shown that the design has acquired a secondary meaning (Wal-Mart Stores v Samara Bros (2000)). A secondary meaning, in the Ninth Circuit, is 'the mental association by a substantial segment of consumers and potential customers between the alleged [trade dress] and a single source of their product" (Levi Straus & Co v Blue Bell (1985)). Like anyone trade mark lawyer knows, adducing evidence as to secondary meaning is a mammoth task and the evidential requirements in the Ninth Circuit are just as onerous. The evidence provided to the court can fall in two types: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is your garden variety survey evidence of purchasers. Circumstantial evidence is evidence relating to the exclusivity, manner, and length of use, amount and manner of advertising, amount of sales, and the number of customers and the claimant's established foot-hold in the market.

Express relied on circumstantial evidence in their trade dress claim which unconvinced the court. The jacket had been sold for less than 5 months and in its last few weeks on the shop floor spent its remaining life on the sale rack. Express also did not promote or advertise the jacket by itself and the sales of the jacket were paltry in comparison to sales of other Express items. Express instead emphasized that the Forever 21 copy was the "exact appearance" of their jacket. Evidence of deliberate copying may, in some cases, support an inference of secondary meaning but it is not enough, in the absence of other circumstantial evidence of secondary meanings, for a finding of secondary meaning.

Take-Home Lesson: The Amerikat doubts this outcome of this case could have been much different had Express had records of their design process, but it is a lesson to all designers and design studios out there - keep a record of your design process, with dates, names, and short details of your process! If you want to scare your design team in doing so, make them read Tower's testimony. Also, if you are going to try and claim protection under trade dress you need to actively promote and market your product as a stand-alone item. This will not only ensure that you can produce evidence that you have spent a certain amount of money promoting the item as a 'calling card' of your brand, but that marketing will hopefully also produce increased sales figures and a longer floor-life of the item, all of which is further evidence that may help in establishing a claim.