CHAPTER NINE

False Advertising, Dilution & ‘Cyberpiracy’

We have seen how the Lanham Act reaches beyond registered marks to also protect unregistered marks and trade dress. But it also provides other legal rights. We will deal with three in this chapter—the § 1125(a) prohibition of false advertising and false or misleading statements of fact, the § 1125(c) “anti dilution” provisions that offer special protection to famous marks, and the § 1125(d) prohibition of “cyberpiracy” or “cybersquatting” that gives trademark owners, under certain circumstances, the right to prevent “bad faith” registering of domain names.

1.) False Advertising: False or Misleading Statements of Fact

Section 1125(a) not only prohibits false or misleading designations of origin—the provision that allows Federal enforcement of unregistered marks and trade dress—it also prohibits false or misleading statements of fact.

1125(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. . . .

Avon Products, Inc. v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc.

984 F.Supp. 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

SOTOMAYOR, District Judge.

[Background: The issue before the court was whether Avon was violating section 1125(a) by claiming that Skin-So-Soft was an insect repellent though it was not approved as such by the FDA. The evidence brought by Johnson was of three kinds. First, it was claimed that Avon’s advertising hinted at insect repellent functions, with phrases such as “more and more people simply won’t face the summer without Avon Skin-So-Soft.” Second, when Avon began marketing an actual FDA-approved repellent using the Skin-So-Soft name, that was alleged to cause consumers to believe that all Skin-So-Soft products contained an insect repellent. Third, it was alleged that there was a persistent consumer “folklore” that attributed insect repellent qualities to Skin-So-Soft and that Avon had an ambivalent relationship towards that folklore. On the one hand, Avon forbade both its customer service representatives and its salespeople from claiming that Skin-So-Soft had any functions other than as a moisturizing bath oil. It had numerous company documents stipulating that any other claim could not be justified and should never be used in advertising. On the other hand, in violation of this policy, many lists of “alternative uses” for the product were circulated among lower level employees inside the company—and these prominently featured the product’s alleged insect repellent qualities. The court reviewed extensive evidence of actual efficacy of Skin-So-Soft as an insect repellent and concluded that it did have some efficacy, though not as much as approved repellents such as DEET, which the Johnson products contained. Judge, now Justice, Sotomayor ruled as follows:]

In Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int’l. Sales Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1960), Judge Friendly posed the question “What is chicken?” This case poses the question “What is insect repellent?”

Plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Avon Products, Inc. (“Avon”) manufactures Skin-So-Soft bath oil (“SSS”), a beauty product that, for reasons not entirely clear, also has some efficacy as an insect repellent, though it is not registered as such with the Environmental Protection Agency (“E.P.A.”). Defendant and counterclaim plaintiff S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (“S.C. Johnson”) manufactures various E.P.A.-registered chemical based repellents, including OFF!. S.C. Johnson alleges that Avon has marketed SSS as an insect repellent in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1992), and Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law; and has engaged in unfair competition under the common law.

S.C. Johnson seeks compensatory damages equivalent to the profits of which Avon has allegedly deprived S.C. Johnson because of Avon’s marketing of SSS as an insect repellent. S.C. Johnson also seeks various forms of injunctive relief, including an order requiring Avon to place disclaimers on all SSS promotional materials and bottles for a three year period stating that scientific testing has revealed that SSS does not effectively repel insects. S.C. Johnson also seeks orders requiring Avon to adopt policies that sanction employees and sales representatives who promote SSS as a repellent and requiring Avon to respond to all media inquiries regarding repellency with a statement that it has been demonstrated through scientific testing that Skin-So-Soft bath oil does not effectively repel insects. Finally, S.C. Johnson seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (1992).

Avon denies that it has marketed SSS as an insect repellent and contends that SSS is sufficiently effective as a repellent such that marketing it as such does not constitute false advertising. . . .

For the reasons to be discussed, I find that Avon has, to a limited extent, marketed SSS as an insect repellent, but that SSS is sufficiently effective as an insect repellent that Avon’s actions do not violate the Lanham Act or the New York General Business Law, and do not constitute common law unfair competition. . . .

VI. THE “SECRET” AND “EIGHTH WONDER” ADS

In 1988, Avon advertised Skin-So-Soft bath oil in a print advertisement which stated:

“Millions of people know the secret of Skin-So-Soft. Do you? It used to be America’s best kept secret. Now, more and more people simply won’t face the summer without Avon Skin So Soft. Here’s a perfect way to discover the soothing benefits of America’s number one selling bath oil. Try it now and see for yourself what millions already know. Avon.”

In 1988, the “Secret” ad was published in USA Today. In 1989, Avon advertised Skin-So-Soft bath oil as the “EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD” in a print ad.

Avon [later] obtained a sublicense to sell an E.P.A. registered insect repellent product developed by another company, Primavera Laboratories, Inc. and in May 1994, Avon began to market that product under the name “Skin-So-Soft Moisturizing Suncare Plus Mosquito, Flea & Deertick Repellent SPF 15 PABA-Free Sunscreen Lotion” (“Skin-So-Soft Three-In-One Product”).

In May 1994, Avon promoted the Skin-So-Soft Three-In-One Product with a national television campaign entitled “Let Kids Be Kids.”

XXIV. ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act provides in relevant part:

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, . . . uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any . . . false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . . in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of . . . another person’s goods, services or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).

The first requirement of a Lanham Act violation is “commercial advertising or promotion” by a defendant. As one court has stated, “[t]he words ‘advertising’ and ‘promotion,’ connote reaching out to consumers. In modern jargon, these words connote proactive, not merely reactive, communication. Lanham Act ‘advertising or promotion’ usually involves initiating notice to consumers. . . .” Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

In order for representations to constitute “commercial advertising or promotion” under Section 43(a)(1)(B), the representations must be disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public to constitute “advertising” or “promotion” within that industry. The level of dissemination required to constitute advertising and promotion will vary from industry to industry and case to case.

Dissemination to a single customer is generally not sufficient. However, where the relevant purchasing public is very small, misrepresentations, though few in number, which reach a significant portion of the purchasing public are actionable. See Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co. (5th Cir. 1996) (allegedly false representations made to eleven of seventy-four members of relevant purchasing public constitutes “advertising or promotion” under the Lanham Act); National Artists Management Co. v. Weaving (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (defendant’s conversations with ten of plaintiff’s thirty clients constituted advertising or promotion under the Lanham Act where industry was “indisputably small and closely interconnected”).

In this case, I conclude that Avon has engaged in advertising and promotion under the Lanham Act. I find this despite the fact that the members of the relevant purchasing public indisputably number in the millions, and S.C. Johnson has only presented approximately 100 lists identifying SSS as an insect repellent from Avon’s files.

My conclusion that Avon has advertised and promoted SSS bath oil as an insect repellent is based on the factual findings described above and summarized as follows:

(1) The lists of alternative uses of SSS [circulated among Avon salespeople in technical violation of Avon policy] clearly had limited but significant distribution. They appeared in locations as disparate as Georgia, North Carolina, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Alaska, Washington, Kentucky and Virginia during the period 1987 (and possibly as early as the late 1970’s) until 1993. One former District Sales Manager, Maria Penninger, saw a list of uses about ten times in 1983 alone and saw lists about 50 times during her eight year tenure as a Division Sales Manager in Tennessee and Mississippi.

(2) The strong degree of similarity among the lists, the fact that the “Eighth Wonder” ad was reproduced on some of the lists, the fact that some Avon managers encouraged sales representatives to use the lists in promoting SSS and the fact that some members of Avon management sought to exploit the repellency folklore surrounding SSS suggests that Avon played a role in the creation or distribution of the lists. At a minimum, Avon knowingly acquiesced in the circulation of these lists by its management and sales representatives.

(3) In addition to the lists, Avon management has produced other promotional materials advertising SSS as a repellent, including buttons, flyers, tee-shirts and business cards bearing the words “Avon” or “Skin-So-Soft” and depicting a dead insect inside a circle with a red line through it.

(4) At least 7%, and possibly as much as 32%, of the population that purchases SSS to use as an insect repellent has been influenced by an Avon related source to believe that SSS is an effective insect repellent.

I conclude that this evidence of Avon’s dissemination of information about SSS’ repellency power, in the context of a business that relies exclusively upon promotion by its sales representatives, constitutes advertising and promotion under the Lanham Act.

XXV. FALSITY UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

In order to recover damages or obtain equitable relief under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must also show that either: (1) the challenged advertisement is literally false, or (2) while the advertisement is literally true it is nevertheless likely to mislead or confuse consumers. Johnson & Johnson, Merck v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. (2d Cir. 1992). In this case, S.C. Johnson contends that the claim that SSS is an effective repellent is literally false because it unjustifiably implies to consumers that SSS meets E.P.A. standards for efficacy and that Avon has test data supporting the repellency claim. However, the law does not impute representations of government approval or supporting test data in the absence of explicit claims.

In Mylan Laboratories v. Matkari (4th Cir. 1993), the Fourth Circuit addressed the issue of whether generic drug manufacturers could be said to have falsely represented that their drugs had been approved by the FDA simply by marketing those drugs with standard package inserts often used for FDA-approved drugs. The Court held that absent an explicit representation that the drugs had received FDA approval, the defendant could not be held liable under the Lanham Act:

[Plaintiff] nowhere points to any statement or representation in the defendants’ advertising which declared ‘proper FDA approval.’ Moreover, that fatal deficiency cannot be cured by contentions that the very act of placing a drug on the market, with standard package inserts often used for FDA-approved drugs, somehow implies (falsely) that the drug had been ‘properly approved by the FDA.’ Such a theory is, quite simply, too great a stretch under the Lanham Act. We agree with defendants that permitting Mylan to proceed on the theory that the defendants violated § 43(a) merely by placing their drugs on the market would, in effect, permit Mylan to use the Lanham Act as a vehicle by which to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

In other words, the standard of falsity under the Lanham Act is distinct from federal licensing standards and, absent an explicit claim that a product has been approved by the relevant federal agency or that the product meets federal standards, a Lanham Act plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s efficacy claims are literally false, not simply that they fail to meet current federal licensing standards. Nor is there legal support for S.C. Johnson’s claim that “the representation that the product is an insect repellent falsely tells the public that Avon has test data which support the repellency claim.” Where an advertising claim “does not refer to tests, a plaintiff may prove the advertisement literally false only by producing evidence that affirmatively shows the claim to be false.” L & F Products v. Procter & Gamble Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1994) [aff’d., 45 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1995)].

Moreover, even if S.C. Johnson were correct in arguing that SSS’ efficacy as a repellent should be evaluated in terms of E.P.A. standards, the E.P.A. standard is simply too context-specific to provide a measure for evaluating liability under the Lanham Act.

Therefore, S.C. Johnson’s Lanham Act claim must be evaluated in terms of literal falsity rather than E.P.A. standards. I find that Avon’s representations that one alternative use for SSS is as an insect repellent are not literally false.

a. As discussed supra, the relevant entomological data indicates that SSS has some efficacy as an insect repellent. S.C. Johnson has not contradicted the proffered evidence that SSS is an effective repellent of midges, sand gnats and biting flies and indeed the relevant test data, including tests conducted by the U.S.D.A. and S.C. Johnson, indicate that SSS does work to repel these insects.

b. The test data also indicate that SSS has some efficacy as a repellent of mosquitoes. In S.C. Johnson’s 1989 field test in the Everglades, SSS had a mean time to confirmed bite of 24 minutes in extremely high densities of 300–2,000 landings per minute by the most aggressive mosquito species, aedes taeniarhynchus.

c. In other tests, conducted in more reasonable conditions, SSS had a longer mean time to confirmed bite. In the Sanders Park test conducted by S.C. Johnson in 1989, SSS had a mean time to confirmed bite of 84 minutes in densities varying from 5 to 30 mosquito lands per minute.

d. Similarly, in the 1995 ICR Everglades test sponsored by Avon, SSS had a mean time to confirmed bite of approximately two hours in densities of approximately 30 lands per minute.

It is true, as S.C. Johnson claims, that SSS is not as effective an insect repellent as DEET. However, Avon has never made a comparative claim regarding SSS and DEET. Although “there need not be a direct comparison to a competitor for a statement to be actionable under the Lanham Act,” Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. (3d Cir. 1993), there is nothing in any of Avon’s promotional materials that could be interpreted as even an implied representation that SSS is a more effective insect repellent than DEET. Accordingly, the relative efficacy of DEET and SSS is not at issue and the fact that DEET is a more effective repellent than SSS does not salvage S.C. Johnson’s Lanham Act claim.

Finally, S.C. Johnson’s Lanham Act claim is also based on the contention that Avon is liable for failing to disclose to consumers that SSS is not an insect repellent. This argument is also unavailing. First, for the reasons discussed supra, SSS is an effective insect repellent and Avon cannot be held liable for failing to state publicly that it is not an insect repellent. Second, the Lanham Act “impos[es] no affirmative duty of disclosure.” International Paint Co. v. Grow Group, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1986); see also McNeilab, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (“a failure to inform consumers of something, even something that they should know, is not per se a misrepresentation actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”).

Accordingly, Avon cannot be held liable under the Lanham Act for failing to state publicly that SSS is not an effective insect repellent.

Questions:

1.) Unlike the § 1114 trademark infringement provisions, which can only be invoked by the owner of the mark, § 1125(a)’s standing criteria are very broad; “[S]hall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.” [Emphasis added.] Why?

2.) In practice, courts have narrowed this standing considerably, requiring the presence of an actual economic or commercial interest. Why?

3.) Do we need such a broad regulation of commercial speech in the Federal trademark statute? What goals does it serve?

4.) How should the Lanham Act relate to other Federal statutes that also regulate labeling and disclosure? To what extent are its provisions precluded or superseded by more specific schemes? The Supreme Court has recently had occasion to rule on this issue.

POM Wonderful, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co.

134 S.Ct. 2228 (2014)

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except BREYER, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Justice KENNEDY, delivered the opinion of the Court.

POM Wonderful LLC makes and sells pomegranate juice products, including a pomegranate-blueberry juice blend. One of POM’s competitors is the Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid Division makes a juice blend sold with a label that, in describing the contents, displays the words “pomegranate blueberry” with far more prominence than other words on the label that show the juice to be a blend of five juices. In truth, the Coca-Cola product contains but 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice.

Alleging that the use of that label is deceptive and misleading, POM sued Coca-Cola under § 43 of the Lanham Act. 60 Stat. 441, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. That provision allows one competitor to sue another if it alleges unfair competition arising from false or misleading product descriptions. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, in the realm of labeling for food and beverages, a Lanham Act claim like POM’s is precluded by a second federal statute. The second statute is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which forbids the misbranding of food, including by means of false or misleading labeling.

The ruling that POM’s Lanham Act cause of action is precluded by the FDCA was incorrect. There is no statutory text or established interpretive principle to support the contention that the FDCA precludes Lanham Act suits like the one brought by POM in this case. Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the FDCA or the Lanham Act shows the congressional purpose or design to forbid these suits. Quite to the contrary, the FDCA and the Lanham Act complement each other in the federal regulation of misleading food and beverage labels. Competitors, in their own interest, may bring Lanham Act claims like POM’s that challenge food and beverage labels that are regulated by the FDCA.

A

This case concerns the intersection and complementarity of these two federal laws. A proper beginning point is a description of the statutes.

Congress enacted the Lanham Act nearly seven decades ago. See 60 Stat. 427 (1946). As the Court explained earlier this Term, it “requires no guesswork” to ascertain Congress’ intent regarding this federal law, for Congress included a “detailed statement of the statute’s purposes.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014). Section 45 of the Lanham Act provides:

“The intent of this chapter is to regulate commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce; to protect registered marks used in such commerce from interference by State, or territorial legislation; to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition; to prevent fraud and deception in such commerce by the use of reproductions, copies, counterfeits, or colorable imitations of registered marks; and to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.

The Lanham Act’s trademark provisions are the primary means of achieving these ends. But the Act also creates a federal remedy “that goes beyond trademark protection.” Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003). The broader remedy is at issue here.

The Lanham Act creates a cause of action for unfair competition through misleading advertising or labeling. Though in the end consumers also benefit from the Act’s proper enforcement, the cause of action is for competitors, not consumers.

The term “competitor” is used in this opinion to indicate all those within the class of persons and entities protected by the Lanham Act. Competitors are within the class that may invoke the Lanham Act because they may suffer “an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by [a] defendant’s misrepresentations.” Lexmark. The petitioner here asserts injury as a competitor.

The cause of action the Act creates imposes civil liability on any person who “uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . . misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). As the Court held this Term, the private remedy may be invoked only by those who “allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales. A consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product may well have an injury-in-fact cognizable under Article III, but he cannot invoke the protection of the Lanham Act.” Lexmark. This principle reflects the Lanham Act’s purpose of “‘protect[ing] persons engaged in [commerce within the control of Congress] against unfair competition.’” POM’s cause of action would be straightforward enough but for Coca-Cola’s contention that a separate federal statutory regime, the FDCA, allows it to use the label in question and in fact precludes the Lanham Act claim.

So the FDCA is the second statute to be discussed. The FDCA statutory regime is designed primarily to protect the health and safety of the public at large. The FDCA prohibits the misbranding of food and drink. 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(f), 331. A food or drink is deemed misbranded if, inter alia, “its labeling is false or misleading,” § 343(a), information required to appear on its label “is not prominently placed thereon,” § 343(f), or a label does not bear “the common or usual name of the food, if any there be,” § 343(i). To implement these provisions, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) promulgated regulations regarding food and beverage labeling, including the labeling of mixes of different types of juice into one juice blend. See 21 CFR § 102.33 (2013). One provision of those regulations is particularly relevant to this case: If a juice blend does not name all the juices it contains and mentions only juices that are not predominant in the blend, then it must either declare the percentage content of the named juice or “[i]ndicate that the named juice is present as a flavor or flavoring,” e.g., “raspberry and cranberry flavored juice drink.” § 102.33(d). The Government represents that the FDA does not preapprove juice labels under these regulations. That contrasts with the FDA’s regulation of other types of labels, such as drug labels, see 21 U.S.C. § 355(d), and is consistent with the less extensive role the FDA plays in the regulation of food than in the regulation of drugs.

Unlike the Lanham Act, which relies in substantial part for its enforcement on private suits brought by injured competitors, the FDCA and its regulations provide the United States with nearly exclusive enforcement authority, including the authority to seek criminal sanctions in some circumstances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 333(a), 337. Private parties may not bring enforcement suits. § 337. Also unlike the Lanham Act, the FDCA contains a provision pre-empting certain state laws on misbranding. That provision, which Congress added to the FDCA in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, § 6, 104 Stat. 2362–2364, forecloses a “State or political subdivision of a State” from establishing requirements that are of the type but “not identical to” the requirements in some of the misbranding provisions of the FDCA. 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a). It does not address, or refer to, other federal statutes or the preclusion thereof.

II

A

This Court granted certiorari to consider whether a private party may bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a food label that is regulated by the FDCA. The answer to that question is based on the following premises.

First, this is not a pre-emption case. In pre-emption cases, the question is whether state law is pre-empted by a federal statute, or in some instances, a federal agency action. See Wyeth v. Levine (2009). This case, however, concerns the alleged preclusion of a cause of action under one federal statute by the provisions of another federal statute. So the state-federal balance does not frame the inquiry. Because this is a preclusion case, any “presumption against pre-emption,” has no force. In addition, the preclusion analysis is not governed by the Court’s complex categorization of the types of pre-emption. Although the Court’s pre-emption precedent does not govern preclusion analysis in this case, its principles are instructive insofar as they are designed to assess the interaction of laws that bear on the same subject.

Second, this is a statutory interpretation case and the Court relies on traditional rules of statutory interpretation. . . .

B

Beginning with the text of the two statutes, it must be observed that neither the Lanham Act nor the FDCA, in express terms, forbids or limits Lanham Act claims challenging labels that are regulated by the FDCA. By its terms, the Lanham Act subjects to suit any person who “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This comprehensive imposition of liability extends, by its own terms, to misrepresentations on labels, including food and beverage labels. No other provision in the Lanham Act limits that understanding or purports to govern the relevant interaction between the Lanham Act and the FDCA. And the FDCA, by its terms, does not preclude Lanham Act suits. In consequence, food and beverage labels regulated by the FDCA are not, under the terms of either statute, off limits to Lanham Act claims. No textual provision in either statute discloses a purpose to bar unfair competition claims like POM’s.

This absence is of special significance because the Lanham Act and the FDCA have coexisted since the passage of the Lanham Act in 1946. If Congress had concluded, in light of experience, that Lanham Act suits could interfere with the FDCA, it might well have enacted a provision addressing the issue during these 70 years. . . . Perhaps the closest the statutes come to addressing the preclusion of the Lanham Act claim at issue here is the pre-emption provision added to the FDCA in 1990 as part of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. But, far from expressly precluding suits arising under other federal laws, the provision if anything suggests that Lanham Act suits are not precluded.

This pre-emption provision forbids a “State or political subdivision of a State” from imposing requirements that are of the type but “not identical to” corresponding FDCA requirements for food and beverage labeling. It is significant that the complex pre-emption provision distinguishes among different FDCA requirements. It forbids state-law requirements that are of the type but not identical to only certain FDCA provisions with respect to food and beverage labeling. Just as significant, the provision does not refer to requirements imposed by other sources of law, such as federal statutes. For purposes of deciding whether the FDCA displaces a regulatory or liability scheme in another statute, it makes a substantial difference whether that other statute is state or federal. By taking care to mandate express pre-emption of some state laws, Congress if anything indicated it did not intend the FDCA to preclude requirements arising from other sources. Pre-emption of some state requirements does not suggest an intent to preclude federal claims.

The structures of the FDCA and the Lanham Act reinforce the conclusion drawn from the text. When two statutes complement each other, it would show disregard for the congressional design to hold that Congress nonetheless intended one federal statute to preclude the operation of the other. The Lanham Act and the FDCA complement each other in major respects, for each has its own scope and purpose. Although both statutes touch on food and beverage labeling, the Lanham Act protects commercial interests against unfair competition, while the FDCA protects public health and safety. . . .

The two statutes complement each other with respect to remedies in a more fundamental respect. Enforcement of the FDCA and the detailed prescriptions of its implementing regulations is largely committed to the FDA. The FDA, however, does not have the same perspective or expertise in assessing market dynamics that day-to-day competitors possess. Competitors who manufacture or distribute products have detailed knowledge regarding how consumers rely upon certain sales and marketing strategies. Their awareness of unfair competition practices may be far more immediate and accurate than that of agency rulemakers and regulators. Lanham Act suits draw upon this market expertise by empowering private parties to sue competitors to protect their interests on a case-by-case basis. By “serv[ing] a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward,” Lanham Act suits, to the extent they touch on the same subject matter as the FDCA, “provide incentives” for manufacturers to behave well. Allowing Lanham Act suits takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation. This is quite consistent with the congressional design to enact two different statutes, each with its own mechanisms to enhance the protection of competitors and consumers. . . .

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

2.) Dilution

Section 1125(c) of the Lanham Act gives a special right to “famous” marks, one that reaches considerably further than conventional trademark infringement.

1125(c) Dilution by blurring; dilution by tarnishment

(1) Injunctive relief

Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.

(2) Definitions

(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.

(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.

(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.

(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), “dilution by blurring” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.

(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.

(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.

(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.

(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

(C) For purposes of paragraph (1), “dilution by tarnishment” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

(3) Exclusions

The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with—

(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or

(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark. . . .

Note that, once a mark has shown itself to be famous, it does not have to clear many of the hurdles that the owner of a conventional mark does in a classic § 1114 infringement suit. Dilution by blurring or tarnishment can be found “regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.” This language was inserted by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA) of 2006 (H.R. 683) to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Moseley, DBA Victor’s Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003), which had required more proof on harm for a dilution claim. Why would Congress want to do this?

But while the TDRA lowered the standards required to prove blurring or tarnishment, it raised the standards required to prove that the mark was “famous.” The result was to leave an extremely strong right, with a low standard to prove injury, but to confine the possession of that right to a few megabrands. Is there a good normative or economic reason to choose that legal design? A political science explanation based on lobbying power? Both?

a.) The Requirement that the Mark be Famous

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Coach Services, Inc. (“CSI”) appeals from the final decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing its opposition to Triumph Learning, LLC’s (“Triumph”) use-based applications to register the mark COACH for educational materials used to prepare students for standardized tests. The Board found that: (1) there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ COACH marks; (2) CSI failed to prove likelihood of dilution. . . .

The Board found that CSI could not succeed on its dilution claims because it failed to show that its COACH mark was famous for dilution purposes. For the reasons explained below, we agree. Because we find that CSI failed to prove fame for dilution, we need not address the other statutory factors courts can consider to determine whether a mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring.

1. Fame for Dilution

A threshold question in a federal dilution claim is whether the mark at issue is “famous.” Under the TDRA, a mark is famous if it “is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A). By using the “general consuming public” as the benchmark, the TDRA eliminated the possibility of “niche fame,” which some courts had recognized under the previous version of the statute. The TDRA lists four non-exclusive factors for courts to consider when determining whether a mark is famous:

(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.

(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.

(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.

(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A). Whether a mark is famous under the TDRA is a factual question reviewed for substantial evidence.

Fame for likelihood of confusion and fame for dilution are distinct concepts, and dilution fame requires a more stringent showing. While fame for dilution “is an either/or proposition”—it either exists or does not—fame for likelihood of confusion is a matter of degree along a continuum. Palm Bay. Accordingly, a mark can acquire “sufficient public recognition and renown to be famous for purposes of likelihood of confusion without meeting the more stringent requirement for dilution fame.” 7-Eleven.

It is well-established that dilution fame is difficult to prove. Everest Capital, Ltd. v. Everest Funds Mgmt. LLC (8th Cir. 2005) (“The judicial consensus is that ‘famous’ is a rigorous standard.”); see also 4 McCarthy, § 24:104 at 24–286, 24–293 (noting that fame for dilution is “a difficult and demanding requirement” and that, although “all ‘trademarks’ are ‘distinctive’—very few are ‘famous’”). This is particularly true where, as here, the mark is a common English word that has different meanings in different contexts. Importantly, the owner of the allegedly famous mark must show that its mark became famous “prior to the filing date of the trademark application or registration against which it intends to file an opposition or cancellation proceeding.” Toro.

As noted, fame for dilution requires widespread recognition by the general public. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A). To establish the requisite level of fame, the “mark’s owner must demonstrate that the common or proper noun uses of the term and third-party uses of the mark are now eclipsed by the owner’s use of the mark.” Toro. An opposer must show that, when the general public encounters the mark “in almost any context, it associates the term, at least initially, with the mark’s owner.” In other words, a famous mark is one that has become a “household name.” With this framework in mind, we turn to CSI’s evidence of fame.

2. CSI Failed to Introduce Sufficient Evidence of Fame for Dilution

The Board found that CSI’s evidence of fame was insufficient to support a dilution claim. On appeal, CSI argues that the same evidence establishing fame for likelihood of confusion also establishes fame for dilution purposes. Specifically, CSI argues that the Board disregarded: (1) sales and advertising figures for years 2000–2008; (2) its sixteen federal trademark registrations; (3) unsolicited media attention; (4) joint marketing efforts; (5) two Second Circuit decisions finding the Coach hangtag, which features the COACH mark, to be famous; and (6) CSI’s internal brand awareness survey showing awareness among 18–24 year old consumers. We address each category of evidence in turn. For the reasons set forth below, we find substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision that CSI failed to show the requisite level of fame for dilution.

Turning first to CSI’s evidence of sales and advertising expenditures, CSI argues that the Board erred when it ignored the annual reports that were attached to a Notice of Reliance. As previously discussed, however, the Board correctly held that these reports were unauthenticated and thus inadmissible. The only sales and advertising figures in the record via Ms. Sadler’s testimony were for one year—2008—which, notably, is after Triumph filed its use-based applications in December 2004. We agree with the Board that this limited evidence of sales and advertising is insufficient to show fame. Even if the Board had considered the annual reports, moreover, such evidence, standing alone, would be insufficient. See Toro (“Merely providing evidence that a mark is a top-selling brand is insufficient to show this general fame without evidence of how many persons are purchasers.”).

With respect to CSI’s registrations, the Board found that the mere existence of federally registered trademarks is insufficient to show that the mark is famous for purposes of dilution because ownership of a registration is not proof of fame. On appeal, CSI argues that the Board erred in this determination because one of the statutory factors a court can consider in the fame analysis is whether the mark is registered on the principal register. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A)(iv). As Triumph points out, however, “[o]ne cannot logically infer fame from the fact that a mark is one of the millions on the Federal Register.” 4 McCarthy, § 24:106 at 24–310. While ownership of a trademark registration is relevant to the fame inquiry, and—to the extent the Board decision implies otherwise—the Board erred on this point, proof of registration is not conclusive evidence of fame.

With respect to media attention, the Board found that CSI’s evidence fell short of showing “widespread recognition of opposer’s mark [by] the general population.” Specifically, the Board found that: “the vast majority of unsolicited media recognition for opposer’s COACH mark comprises a reference to one of opposer’s products as one of many different fashion buys or trends, and the news articles noting opposer’s renown are too few to support a finding that opposer’s mark has been transformed into a household name.” On appeal, CSI argues that the Board ignored hundreds of unsolicited articles mentioning the COACH mark over the years. CSI points to several examples, including the following:

- “In fact, Coach’s growth . . . has been phenomenal. When Sara Lee acquired the firm in 1985, its volume was about $18 million. In Sara Lee’s latest fiscal year, which ended last June 30, Coach’s sales exceeded $500 million. The name also resonates with consumers. The brand ranked eighth among the top 10 in accessories firms in the latest Fairchild 100 consumer survey of fashion labels, in 1995.” (Women’s Wear Daily, May 5, 1997).

- “Coach, one of the top makers of status handbags in the United States . . .” (The New York Times, Jan. 27, 1999).

- “Coach’s creative director has helped transform the 60-year old company into a must-have American icon.” (Women’s Wear Daily, June 2001).

- “Will Coach Become Too Popular? . . . Coach, the maker and retailer of stylish handbags, just had a blowout season. . . . Clearly Coach has recorded some of the best growth numbers of any retailer or accessories maker in recent years.” (Business Week, Jan. 24, 2007).

Looking at the media attention in the record, there is certainly evidence that CSI’s COACH mark has achieved a substantial degree of recognition. That said, many of the articles submitted are dated after Triumph filed its registration applications and thus do not show that CSI’s mark was famous prior to the filing date. See Toro (“an owner of an allegedly famous mark must establish that its mark had become famous prior to the filing date of the trademark application” which it opposes). And, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that many of the references are limited to mentioning one of CSI’s COACH products among other brands. Accordingly, even though there is some evidence of media attention, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that the media evidence submitted fails to show widespread recognition.

With respect to joint marketing efforts, CSI argued that other popular brands, including LEXUS and CANON, have used the COACH mark in connection with their products. The Board found that CSI “failed to provide any testimony regarding the success of the joint marketing efforts and the effect of those efforts in promoting opposer’s mark.” Board Decision, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1611, n.37. We agree. Without evidence as to the success of these efforts or the terms of any contracts involved, they have little value here.

Next, the Board found that CSI’s 2008 brand awareness study was “of dubious probative value” because it did not offer a witness with first-hand knowledge of the study to explain how it was conducted. The Board further noted that, although the study showed a high level of brand awareness among women ages 13–24, it provided no evidence of brand awareness among women generally, or among men. See Top Tobacco (noting that the TDRA eliminated the possibility of “niche fame” as a basis for finding a mark famous). And, the survey was conducted in 2007, several years after Triumph filed its applications. Given these circumstances, we find no error in the Board’s decision to give this survey limited weight.

CSI also argues that the Board failed to adequately consider two Second Circuit decisions finding that the hangtag attached to its various handbags, which features the COACH mark, is distinctive. See Coach Leatherware Co., Inc. v. AnnTaylor, Inc. (2d Cir. 1991) (finding that Coach’s lozenge-shaped leather tags embossed with the name “Coach Leatherware,” which are attached to Coach’s handbags by beaded brass chains, “have become distinctive and valuable through Coach’s promotional efforts and by virtue of its upscale reputation”); see also Coach, Inc. v. We Care Trading Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 2002) (affirming the jury’s dilution verdict on grounds that “the jury’s determination that the hang tag was famous and distinctive was not unreasonable” and “the substantial similarity of the two marks here coupled with the use of Coach’s very distinctive hang tag shape amply justified the jury’s verdict”). Although the Board did not specifically address these cases, we agree with Triumph that they are unrelated and irrelevant, particularly because: (1) the 1991 case did not involve a dilution claim; and (2) both cases focus on the hangtag feature on CSI’s handbags, not on the alleged fame of the COACH mark generally.

Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Board that CSI failed to provide sufficient evidence of fame for dilution purposes. Absent a showing of fame, CSI’s dilution claim fails, and we need not address the remaining statutory factors for dilution by blurring.

Before moving on, we pause to emphasize the fact-specific nature of our holding today. While the burden to show fame in the dilution context is high—and higher than that for likelihood of confusion purposes—it is not insurmountable. We do not hold that CSI could never establish the requisite level of fame for dilution purposes. We hold only that, on the record presented to it, the Board had substantial support for its conclusion that CSI’s evidentiary showing was just too weak to do so here.

Questions:

1.) Why protect famous marks from dilution or tarnishment in the first place? Why should we not have Rolex beer or Prada hemorrhoid cream, so long as no consumer thinks that this is the “long awaited entry” (to quote Lois) of those companies into this new market? (A potential confusion against which § 1114 and § 1125(a) already guard.) Does this represent an expansion of trademark’s ambit? On what theory?

2.) Why does the court set such a seemingly high bar in this case for proof that a mark is famous? Does the particular controversy in this case—a luggage maker trying to stop a company using “Coach” for educational products—explain the heightened proof the court requires? Look at the passage where the court says “This is particularly true where, as here, the mark is a common English word that has different meanings in different contexts.” Does this mean there is no general standard for “fame” but rather one that is relative? Or is the court simply delineating the amount of fame needed in such a situation, so that the average person hearing “Coach” would think “handbag” rather than “K” or “basketball” or any other relevant connotation?

3.) What other marks should count as famous? How about Viagra, Visa, “Just Do It,” Newport cigarettes or the University of Texas’s longhorn logo? [Of this group, the longhorn was the only one found not to be famous. Do you agree?]

b.) The Requirement of “Commercial Speech”; Dilution by Tarnishment

Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

537 F.Supp.2d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2008)

TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.

This action arises from the contention of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that its registered trademarks “WALMART”; “WAL-MART”; and “WAL★MART”; its registered word mark “ALWAYS LOW PRICES. ALWAYS”; and its “well-known smiley face mark” were infringed by Plaintiff Charles Smith’s anti-Wal-Mart merchandise. Smith petitions the Court to declare his activities legal so that he may resume them without fear of incurring liability for damages; Wal-Mart counterclaims for an award of ownership of Smith’s Wal-Mart-related domain names, an injunction precluding Smith from making commercial use of any designation beginning with the prefix “WAL,” and an award of nominal damages. . . .

I. Background

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which had approximately $283 billion in gross domestic revenue in fiscal year 2008, sells retail goods and services through a large chain of nearly 6500 physical stores and its Internet site, www.wal-mart.com. The company also owns and operates additional domain names, including www.walmartstores.com and www.walmartfacts.com, that link to the www.wal-mart.com website.

The company owns and has continuously used the well-known WAL-MART trademark and service mark in the United States for retail department store services since 1962 and has longstanding registered trademark rights in the marks. WAL-MART and WALMART are used alone or in conjunction with Wal-Mart’s blue five-pointed star. Wal-Mart also owns a trademark registration in the word mark “ALWAYS LOW PRICES. ALWAYS.” . . .

Smith is an avid and vocal critic of Wal-Mart. He believes that Wal-Mart has a destructive effect on communities, treats workers badly, and has a damaging influence on the United States as a whole—an influence so detrimental to the United States and its communities that Smith likens it to that of the Nazi regime. With the goals of stimulating discussions about Wal-Mart and getting others of like mind to join him in expressing strongly negative views about Wal-Mart, Smith created various designs and slogans that incorporated the word “Walocaust,” a word Smith invented by combining the first three letters of Wal-Mart’s name with the last six letters of the word “holocaust.”

Smith created four basic Walocaust designs. One design depicted a blue stylized bird modeled to resemble a Nazi eagle grasping a yellow smiley face in the same manner that a Nazi eagle is typically depicted grasping a swastika. Above the bird image, the word “WAL★OCAUST” was printed in a blue font comparable to that commonly used by Wal-Mart. Two designs were text only: one design read, “I WAL★OCAUST They have FAMILY VALUES and their ALCOHOL, TOBACCO and FIREARMS are 20% OFF”; and another design read, “WAL★OCAUST Come for the LOW prices[,] stay for the KNIFE fights.” The fourth was a graphical design that depicted the word WAL★OCAUST on a Wal-Mart-like storefront that also included the Nazi eagle image, a poster advertising family values and discounted alcohol, tobacco and firearms, and other images commenting negatively on Wal-Mart.

Smith does not claim any exclusive right to his Wal-Mart-related creations; in fact, he says that he would like to see the general public use the terms freely. He hoped that the word “Walocaust” would become such a commonly used term to describe Wal-Mart that it might eventually appear in the dictionary.

In late July 2005, to help draw attention to his Walocaust concept and his views about Wal-Mart in general, Smith arranged for some of his designs to be printed on t-shirts and other items like mugs, underwear, camisoles, teddy bears, bumper stickers and bibs that could be purchased through www.CafePress.com. He also placed text on his CafePress account home page that included harsh statements about Wal-Mart, such as “Walocaust: The World is Our Labor Camp. Walmart Sucks” and “Say hello to the Walocaust, say hello to low prices, say hello to child labor, say hello to unpaid overtime, say hello to 60 hour work weeks, say hello to low pay, say hello to poverty[.] Say hello to the Walocaust, say goodbye to health insurance, say goodbye to weekends, say goodbye to vacation, say goodbye to retirement, say goodbye to living indoors[.] The Walocaust: coming soon to your occupation. A real web site is coming soon. Contact: Walocaust@yahoo.com[.]”

Although CafePress offered the option to open a “basic shop” at no charge, which would have allowed Smith to sell his items at cost, Smith instead chose to pay $6.95 per month for a “premium account,” which offered several automated functions that allowed him to set up a website without knowing HTML code. This enabled Smith to display on his CafePress website his products, his other designs, and content more fully expressing his views about Wal-Mart. It also enabled him to have his www.walocaust.com domain name bring viewers to the home page of his CafePress account. In hopes that profit from his CafePress site would cover the costs of his premium fees and domain name, Smith retained CafePress’s default “medium” mark-up setting, which set his items’ sale price at approximately thirty percent above cost.

On December 28, 2005, and again on February 1, 2006, Wal-Mart wrote to Smith and to CafePress, asserting that Smith’s Walocaust CafePress webpage was violating Wal-Mart’s trademark rights, and demanding that they cease selling all products imprinted with his various anti-Wal-Mart designs. Wal-Mart also objected to Smith’s registration and use of the domain name www.walocaust.com, demanding that Smith cease using the domain name and transfer ownership of it to Wal-Mart.

In response, CafePress removed all of Smith’s Wal-Mart-related merchandise from his online store so that only non-Wal-Mart-related merchandise remained available at www.cafepress.com/walocaust.

On March 6, 2006, Smith filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment of his right to sell his Walocaust merchandise and demanding costs and attorneys’ fees.

After learning that some courts of appeals had approved disclaimers as a technique for minimizing possible trademark confusion, Smith added one to the top of his Walocaust webpage, stating that the site is unaffiliated with Wal-Mart and containing, the URL for Wal-Mart’s official website to help redirect any visitors who may have intended to visit www.wal-mart.com but instead accessed the Walocaust site by mistake. He also updated the site to denounce Wal-Mart’s role in forcing this litigation and filing counterclaims, and he posted a link to an entity called “Public Citizen” through which visitors have donated $1040.01 in support of his legal activities.

On or about March 8, 2006, after filing his declaratory judgment complaint, Smith also registered the domain names www.wal-qaeda.com and www.walqaeda.com. “Wal-Qaeda” was another portmanteau word Smith coined, this time combining the name “Wal-Mart” with “Al-Qaeda.” Smith intended the word “Wal-Qaeda” as a comment on what he considered to be Wal-Mart’s terrorist-like attack on his free speech through threats of litigation.

On a new site that was accessible via both www.wal-qaeda.com and www. walqaeda.com, Smith displayed various graphics incorporating his new word. He also posted other anti-Wal-Mart slogans such as “FREEDOM-HATER-MART STOP Stomping on our free speech!” and “Freedom-Haters ALWAYS,” intended to call to mind Wal-Mart’s trademark “ALWAYS LOW PRICES. ALWAYS.”

Once he became certain that CafePress was open to carrying his new Wal-Qaeda concepts, he created a new Wal-Qaeda CafePress webpage where he again offered various items commenting on Wal-Mart. . . . The site offered two text-only designs that depicted the word “WAL-QAEDA” in a blue block letter font similar to Wal-Mart’s: one with the legend “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS[.] BOYCOTT WAL-QADA” and another reading, “WAL-QADA[.] Freedom Haters ALWAYS.” The site also offered products imprinted with five other graphical concepts. One of those concepts was a revision of the Walocaust storefront design, altered to replace “WAL★OCAUST” with “WAL-QAEDA[.] THE DIME STORE FROM HELL”; to replace the Nazi eagle with “FREEDOM HATERS ALWAYS” and “2 days without a k[n]ife fight”; and to make other small changes. Another concept depicted an American flag in the shape of a United States map with the word “DECEASED” stamped over it. Above the flag was printed “WAL-QAEDA[.] THE DIME STORE FROM HELL,” and under the flag appeared the phrase “CAUSE OF DEATH: A Dime Store.” In the third concept, the slogan “ATTENTION WAL★QAEDA[.] THESE COLORS DON’T RUN” was imprinted over a modified American flag, and in the last two concepts, Hillary Clinton was named the “WAL-QAEDA Employee of the Year 1986–1992,” and Chairman Mao Zedong was awarded the “WAL-QAEDA Human Resource Achievement Award.”

Although he hoped to help finance this lawsuit with the proceeds, Smith did not actively market his designs. He did, however, post his new Wal-Qaeda home page, his Wal-Qaeda CafePress account and a link to the Wal-Qaeda home page from his Walocaust website at a time when he knew that reporters were working on stories about this litigation. As a result, news about his new Wal-Qaeda designs was reported in the press and on blogs, and almost all of the sales of Smith’s Wal-Qaeda items occurred within a month of the first publicity that followed upon the press and bloggers discovering those designs. The revenues from Smith’s CafePress Walocaust and Wal-Qaeda account sales have been less than his costs for the domain names and CafePress account fees.

On April 28, 2006, Wal-Mart filed its answer and counterclaim, asserting various federal trademark claims and related state law claims against Smith for both the Walocaust and the Wal-Qaeda products. Wal-Mart contends that Smith has engaged in (1) trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and common law; (2) unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) trademark dilution by tarnishment in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); and (4) cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

II. Analysis

Wal-Mart contends that Smith is a merchant who misappropriated its trademarks and business reputation in pursuit of illegal profit and who disingenuously seeks to cloak those activities under the First Amendment. Smith alleges that Wal-Mart is attempting to misuse trademark laws to censor his criticism of the company. According to Smith, at stake in this case is a person’s right to publicly criticize the world’s largest retailer—or any other business. . . .

C. Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims

To prove that Smith committed trademark infringement or cybersquatting, or subjected Wal-Mart to unfair competition or deceptive trade practices, Wal-Mart must also show that Smith’s use of its trademarks is likely to cause an appreciable number of potential buyers to be confused about the source, affiliation or sponsorship of Smith’s products. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A) (subjecting to a cybersquatting claim only domain names that are “identical or confusingly similar” to a senior mark).

In making this inquiry, courts consider a variety of factors, including the strength of the allegedly infringed mark, whether the designs that incorporate the registered mark are similar, whether the products sold by the parties are similar, whether the retail outlets and purchasers are similar, whether the parties use the same advertising media, whether the defendant intended to usurp the registered trademark, and whether any consumers were actually confused. The Court must balance the factors according to its own judgment based on the facts in the case before it. . . .

Because Smith’s arguments with regard to the Safeway factors depend heavily on whether his designs are successful parodies, the Court must first consider whether the contested designs are in fact parodies of Wal-Mart’s registered marks. See Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that the claim that a secondary use is a parody is not a separate defense to a charge of trademark infringement but is instead is considered within the likelihood of confusion analysis). For the purposes of trademark analysis, “a parody is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner.” Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (4th Cir. 2007). To be considered successful, the alleged parody must both call to mind and differentiate itself from the original, and it must “communicate some articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking or amusement.”

When applying these criteria to the facts of the case, it is clear that Smith’s concepts are parodies of the registered Wal-Mart marks. Smith successfully calls Wal-Mart to mind by using either “WAL” or “MART” as part of the concept; by mimicking its fonts and storefront design; by mentioning Bentonville, the location of Wal-Mart’s headquarters; or by including various other icons typically associated with Wal-Mart. As Wal-Mart fervently contends, it is obvious that Smith’s concepts use Wal-Mart imagery to evoke the company in the mind of his viewers.

It is equally obvious that Smith’s concepts are not the “idealized image” of the registered Wal-Mart marks. “Walocaust,” “Wal-Qaeda” and “Freedom-Hater-Mart” are not “Wal-Mart.” The imagery on Smith’s t-shirts includes portraits of Mao Zedong, a United States map with the word “DECEASED” stamped over it, and the slogan “FREEDOM HATERS ALWAYS.”

Finally, the juxtaposition of the similar and dissimilar—the satirical representation and the idealized image of Wal-Mart—conveys a scathing parody. In the “smiley eagle” Walocaust concept, the reference to the Holocaust and the image of the Nazi eagle clutching a smiley face at once portrays and contradicts the benign image that Wal-Mart portrays to the community. In the “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” Wal-Qaeda concept, Smith transforms all-American “Wal-Mart” into the terrorist group “Wal-Qaeda” and satirically urges the viewer to support Wal-Qaeda’s troops, apparently commenting both on what Smith considers to be Wal-Mart’s ruthless business tactics and its detrimental impact on the United States. Other concepts juxtapose Wal-Mart’s reputation for low prices with a reference to poor store security and the company’s family values imagery with the fact that it offers for sale inexpensive alcohol, tobacco and firearms—products known better for destroying families.

The Court thus concludes that Smith’s concepts adequately evoke Wal-Mart while maintaining their differentiation, and they convey Smith’s satirical commentary; thus, they are successful parodies. See Louis Vuitton.

The finding that Smith’s concepts are parodies does not preclude the likelihood of confusion analysis, however; it merely influences the way the likelihood of confusion factors are applied. “[A]n effective parody will actually diminish the likelihood of confusion, while an ineffective parody does not.” Because even a parody may constitute trademark infringement if that parody is confusing, the Court will next consider the likelihood of confusion factors. . . .

Evaluating the overall balance of the seven likelihood of confusion factors, the Court finds that Wal-Mart has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that its trademarks “WALMART,” “WAL-MART,” and “WAL★MART” and its word mark “ALWAYS LOW PRICES. ALWAYS.” would be confused with Smith’s “WALOCAUST,” “WAL-QAEDA,” “FREEDOM HATER MART,” or “BENTON★VILLEBULLIES ALWAYS” concepts. In so finding, the Court concludes that factors three (similarity of the marks), five (similarity of sales methods) and six (similarity of advertising methods), weigh in Smith’s favor, with particular emphasis on how different the appearance and usage of the marks were and how vastly the parties’ advertising methods differed. The Court concludes that factors one (actual confusion), two (strength of the mark), four (similarity of product) and seven (Smith’s intent) favor neither party.

In sum, the Court is convinced that no fair-minded jury could find that a reasonable consumer is likely to be confused by the challenged marks. As a result, the Court GRANTS summary judgment to Smith on Wal-Mart’s claims of trademark infringement, unfair business competition, cybersquatting and deceptive trade practices.

D. Trademark Dilution by Tarnishment

Wal-Mart contends that Smith’s Walocaust and Wal-Qaeda concepts, by associating Wal-Mart with “the perpetrators of such atrocities as the Holocaust and the attacks of September 11, 2001, unquestionably tarnish the Wal-Mart marks.” Dilution by tarnishment recognizes an injury when a “trademark is . . . portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context likely to evoke unflattering thoughts about the owner’s product.” Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods., Inc. (2d Cir. 1994).

“However, tarnishment caused merely by an editorial or artistic parody which satirizes [the complainant’s] product or its image is not actionable under an anti-dilution statute because of the free speech protections of the First Amendment.” Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods. (9th Cir. 2003). “Parody is a form of noncommercial expression if it does more than propose a commercial transaction.” Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp. (1983).

A claim of dilution applies only to purely commercial speech. Mattel. See also Bolger (finding that materials do not become “commercial speech” simply because the author had economic motivation to create them). “The question whether an economic motive existed is more than a question whether there was an economic incentive for the speaker to make the speech; the Bolger test also requires that the speaker acted substantially out of economic motivation.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp. (5th Cir. 2001) “Thus, for example, speech that is principally based on religious or political convictions, but which may also benefit the speaker economically, would fall short of the requirement that the speech was economically motivated” and therefore would be considered noncommercial.

At least one court of appeals has specifically addressed whether a social advocate selling t-shirts that carried the group’s social message was engaging in noncommercial speech, despite the fact that the group sold the t-shirts to the public for profit. See Ayres v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 1997). In Ayres, the court distinguished limitations on “the sale of goods that are not themselves forms of protected speech,” noting that precedent allows more restriction on sales of nonexpressive goods than it does on goods that are forms of protected speech. The court likened t-shirts carrying messages of social advocacy to “the sandwich boards that union pickets sometimes wear.” As such, the t-shirts were “a medium of expression prima facie protected by the free-speech clause of the First Amendment, and they do not lose their protection by being sold rather than given away.”

The Court is convinced that a reasonable juror could only find that Smith primarily intended to express himself with his Walocaust and Wal-Qaeda concepts and that commercial success was a secondary motive at most. Smith has strongly adverse opinions about Wal-Mart; he believes that it has a destructive effect on communities, treats workers badly and has a damaging influence on the United States as a whole. He invented the term “Walocaust” to encapsulate his feelings about Wal-Mart, and he created his Walocaust designs with the intent of calling attention to his beliefs and his cause. He never expected to have any exclusive rights to the word. He created the term “Wal-Qaeda” and designs incorporating it with similar expressive intent. The Court has found those designs to be successful parodies.

Thus, Smith’s parodic work is considered noncommercial speech and therefore not subject to Wal-Mart’s trademark dilution claims, despite the fact that Smith sold the designs to the public on t-shirts and other novelty merchandise. Consequently, Smith’s motion for summary judgment on Wal-Mart’s trademark dilution claims is hereby GRANTED.

III. Conclusion

Smith’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, and Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Court hereby issues a declaratory judgment that Smith’s activities have not violated any of Wal-Mart’s trademark rights. Smith may maintain his domain names and websites. He may also resume offering for sale via his Walocaust and Wal-Qaeda CafePress webstores his parodic WALOCAUST, WAL-QAEDA, FREEDOM HATER MART, and BENTON★VILLEBULLIES ALWAYS concepts printed on novelty merchandise; on any webpage or other channel offering such merchandise for sale, Smith must continue to include prominent disclaimers of affiliation with Wal-Mart.

Questions:

1.) Commercial/Noncommercial Use v. Use in Commerce: We have said repeatedly that the “commercial/non commercial” line is one way that courts and legislatures seek to trim the ambit of intellectual property rights, to fine tune them so that they are neither under nor over inclusive. So far, we have looked at two definitions of “use in commerce”—one in the context of the use required to obtain a mark and one in the context of the use required to infringe a mark. How is the definition of commercial speech here in the context of dilution different? Why is it different? [Hint: what would be the ambit of the ‘non commercial’ defense to dilution if we took a broad definition of commercial, such as “anything Congress can regulate under the commerce clause?”]

2.) Smith was selling, for profit, T shirts that used portions of Walmart’s logos. Why is this not commercial? List the reasons the court gives, starting with those you think most important.

3.) The court draws a distinction between “speech goods”, those that carry a message though they are distributed for profit, and those that offer no such message. Is this distinction of relevance in the PETA case? Should it have been?

c.) Dilution by Blurring

Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc.

588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009)

MINER, Circuit Judge.

A. Preliminary Facts

Starbucks, a company primarily engaged in the sale of coffee products, was founded in Seattle, Washington in 1971. Since its founding, Starbucks has grown to over 8,700 retail locations in the United States, Canada, and 34 foreign countries and territories. In addition to operating its retail stores, Starbucks supplies its coffees to hundreds of restaurants, supermarkets, airlines, sport and entertainment venues, motion picture theaters, hotels, and cruise ship lines. Starbucks also maintains an internet site that generates over 350,000 “hits” per week from visitors.

In conducting all of its commercial activities, Starbucks prominently displays its registered “Starbucks” marks (the “Starbucks Marks”) on its products and areas of business. The Starbucks Marks include, inter alia, the tradename “Starbucks” and its logo, which is circular and generally contains a graphic of a mermaid-like siren encompassed by the phrase “Starbucks Coffee.” Starbucks “has been the subject of U.S. trademark registrations continuously since 1985” and has approximately 60 U.S. trademark registrations. Starbucks also has foreign trademark registrations in 130 countries.

Black Bear, also a company engaged in the sale of coffee products, has its principal place of business in Tuftonboro, New Hampshire. In contrast to Starbucks, Black Bear is a relatively small company owned by Jim Clark and his wife. It is a family-run business that “manufactures and sells . . . roasted coffee beans and related goods via mail order, internet order, and at a limited number of New England supermarkets.” Black Bear also sold coffee products from a retail outlet called “The Den,” in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. To help operate its business, Black Bear hires some part-time employees, such as “one girl who comes in two days a week and helps with packaging,” but Black Bear is otherwise operated by Mr. and Mrs. Jim Clark, with the occasional help of their two daughters.

In April 1997, Black Bear began selling a “dark roasted blend” of coffee called “Charbucks Blend” and later “Mister Charbucks” (together, the “Charbucks Marks”). Charbucks Blend was sold in a packaging that showed a picture of a black bear above the large font “BLACK BEAR MICRO ROASTERY.” The package informed consumers that the coffee was roasted and “Air Quenched” in New Hampshire and, in fairly large font, that “You wanted it dark . . . You’ve got it dark!” Mister Charbucks was sold in a packaging that showed a picture of a man walking above the large font “Mister Charbucks.” The package also informed consumers that the coffee was roasted in New Hampshire by “The Black Bear Micro Roastery” and that the coffee was “ROASTED TO THE EXTREME . . . FOR THOSE WHO LIKE THE EXTREME.” . . .

B. Federal Trademark Dilution

Under federal law, an owner of a “famous, distinctive mark” is entitled to an “injunction against the user of a mark that is ‘likely to cause dilution’ of the famous mark.” Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)). Although the requirement that the mark be “famous” and “distinctive” significantly limits the pool of marks that may receive dilution protection, that the Starbucks Marks are “famous” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) is not disputed by the parties in this case. Rather, the focus of this appeal is on dilution itself. As specified by statute, federal dilution is actionable in two situations: (1) dilution by “blurring” and (2) dilution by “tarnishment.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

1. Dilution by Blurring

Dilution by blurring is an “association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark,” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B), and may be found “regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury,” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1); see also Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc. (2d Cir. 1994); Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc. (2d Cir. 1999). Some classic examples of blurring include “hypothetical anomalies as Dupont shoes, Buick aspirin tablets, Schlitz varnish, Kodak pianos, Bulova gowns, and so forth.” See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (2d Cir. 1989); see also id. (stating that the primary concern in blurring actions is preventing “the whittling away of an established trademark’s selling power through its unauthorized use by others.”).

Federal law specifies six non-exhaustive factors for the courts to consider in determining whether there is dilution by blurring:

(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.

(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.

(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.

(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.

(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i)–(vi); The District Court found that the second, third, and fourth factors favored Starbucks, and those findings are not challenged in this appeal.

With respect to the first factor—the degree of similarity between the marks—the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks. Although “Ch”arbucks is similar to “St”arbucks in sound and spelling, it is evident from the record that the Charbucks Marks—as they are presented to consumers—are minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks. The Charbucks line of products are presented as either “Mister Charbucks” or “Charbucks Blend” in packaging that displays the “Black Bear” name in no subtle manner, and the packaging also makes clear that Black Bear is a “Micro Roastery” located in New Hampshire. Moreover, Black Bear’s package design for Charbucks coffee is “different in imagery, color, and format from Starbucks’ logo and signage.” For example, either a graphic of a bear or a male person is associated with Charbucks, and those marks are not comparable to the Starbucks graphic of a siren in pose, shape, art-style, gender, or overall impression. Indeed, the Starbucks siren appears nowhere on the Charbucks package. To the extent the Charbucks Marks are presented to the public through Black Bear’s website, the dissimilarity between the marks is still evident as the Charbucks brand of coffee is accompanied by Black Bear’s domain name, www.blackbearcoffee.com, and other products, such as shirts and cups, displaying Black Bear’s name. . . .

Upon its finding that the marks were not substantially similar, however, the District Court concluded that “[t]his dissimilarity alone is sufficient to defeat [Starbucks’] blurring claim, and in any event, this factor at a minimum weighs strongly against [Starbucks] in the dilution analysis.” We conclude that the District Court erred to the extent it required “substantial” similarity between the marks, and, in this connection, we note that the court may also have placed undue significance on the similarity factor in determining the likelihood of dilution in its alternative analysis.

Prior to the TDRA, this Court has held that “[a] plaintiff cannot prevail on a state or federal dilution claim unless the marks at issue are ‘very’ or ‘substantially similar.’” Playtex Prods., Inc. . . .

The post-TDRA federal dilution statute, however, provides us with a compelling reason to discard the “substantially similar” requirement for federal trademark dilution actions. The current federal statute defines dilution by blurring as an “association arising from the similarity between a mark . . . and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark,” and the statute lists six non-exhaustive factors for determining the existence of an actionable claim for blurring. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B). Although “similarity” is an integral element in the definition of “blurring,” we find it significant that the federal dilution statute does not use the words “very” or “substantial” in connection with the similarity factor to be considered in examining a federal dilution claim.

Indeed, one of the six statutory factors informing the inquiry as to whether the allegedly diluting mark “impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark” is “[t]he degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i). Consideration of a “degree” of similarity as a factor in determining the likelihood of dilution does not lend itself to a requirement that the similarity between the subject marks must be “substantial” for a dilution claim to succeed. See Bonime. Moreover, were we to adhere to a substantial similarity requirement for all dilution by blurring claims, the significance of the remaining five factors would be materially diminished because they would have no relevance unless the degree of similarity between the marks are initially determined to be “substantial.” Such requirement of substantial similarity is at odds with the federal dilution statute, which lists “degree of similarity” as one of several factors in determining blurring. . . .

Turning to the remaining two disputed factors—(1) whether the user of the mark intended to create an association with the famous mark, and (2) whether there is evidence of any actual association between the mark and the famous mark—we conclude that the District Court also erred in considering these factors.

The District Court determined that Black Bear possessed the requisite intent to associate Charbucks with Starbucks but that this factor did not weigh in favor of Starbucks because Black Bear did not act in “bad faith.” The determination of an “intent to associate,” however, does not require the additional consideration of whether bad faith corresponded with that intent. The plain language of section 1125(c) requires only the consideration of “[w]hether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.” Thus, where, as here, the allegedly diluting mark was created with an intent to associate with the famous mark, this factor favors a finding of a likelihood of dilution.

. . . In rejecting Starbucks’ claim of actual association, the District Court referred to evidence supporting the absence of “actual confusion” to conclude that “the evidence is insufficient to make the . . . factor weigh in [Starbucks’] favor to any significant degree.” This was error, as the absence of actual or even of a likelihood of confusion does not undermine evidence of trademark dilution. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B); accord Nabisco (stating that while a showing of consumer confusion is relevant in determining dilution by blurring, the absence of confusion “has no probative value” in the dilution analysis).

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, we remand to the District Court for consideration of Starbucks’ claim of trademark dilution by blurring under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B).

• • • • • • • • • •

The Aftermath: On remand, the District Court held again for Black Bear and against Starbucks. In the words of the 2d Circuit:

[T]he District Court recognized that the second through fifth statutory factors favored Starbucks. But the court again found that the first factor (the similarity of the marks) favored Black Bear because the marks were only minimally similar when presented in commerce—that is, when the Charbucks Marks are viewed on the packaging, which includes the phrases “Charbucks Blend” or “Mister Charbucks.” As for the sixth factor (actual association), the District Court acknowledged that the [survey] results “constitute evidence of actual association,” but it then significantly discounted those results on the ground that the survey inquired into associations only with the isolated word “Charbucks” and failed to present the Charbucks Marks in full context. The court also compared the survey results in this case with those in other cases. Here, it noted, only 30.5 percent of respondents associated “Charbucks” with “Starbucks,” while in other trade dilution cases 70 percent to 90 percent of survey respondents associated the relevant marks. The District Court also compared the 3.1 percent of respondents who thought a product called “Charbucks” would be made by Starbucks to the 28 percent of respondents who made a similar origin association in a Ninth Circuit trademark dilution case [citing Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008)]. With the benefit of these comparisons, the District Court found that the actual association factor weighs “no more than minimally” in Starbucks’ favor. In evaluating the likelihood of dilution, the District Court emphasized the “association” and “similarity” factors. Citing the TDRA’s definition of dilution by blurring as “association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark,” the District Court explained that “[t]he statutory language leaves no doubt” that these two factors are “obviously important.” After balancing all six factors, the District Court held that Starbucks had failed to meet its burden of showing that it was entitled to injunctive relief.

Once again, the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling. Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 736 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2013). Do you agree?

PROBLEM 9-1

DILUTION OF (BY) ALCOHOL?

[The facts of this, real, situation have been modified for the purposes of the Problem. The words attributed to the Duke spokesperson are changed from the original for the purposes of the discussion.]

John Wayne, the legendary actor, was also known by the nickname The Duke. (His original name was Marion Robert Morrison.) Apparently “Duke” was his childhood dog’s name, and local firefighters used it as a nickname for the boy. John Wayne Enterprises—owned by his heirs—has sought to register “Duke” for a variety of goods and services over the years: including restaurants, celebrity licensing services and gaming machines. Now they want to register it for alcoholic beverages, and in particular, bourbon. Duke University—the venerable educational institution—strongly objects to the registration of “Duke” for alcohol, alleging that it will dilute their famous “Duke” mark: “Consistent with Duke’s policies, we do not permit use of confusingly similar marks associated with unapproved goods or services, of uncertain quality and/or unregulated by Duke University. We also seek to prevent our mark from being “tarnished” or “blurred” by its association with goods and services at odds with our educational mission. As a university, we are deeply aware of the dangers of alcohol, particularly in the context of a college environment. Consequently we will firmly oppose registration of this mark. In addition, if Wayne Enterprises persists in attempting to put the Duke name on alcoholic beverages—of exactly the kind that might appeal to college students—we will bring a Federal anti-dilution action.”

Image from the producers of Duke bourbon at http://www.dukespirits.com/

Image from the producers of Duke bourbon at http://www.dukespirits.com/

What sections of the Lanham Act will Duke rely on in attempting to block registration? Will they succeed? If Wayne Enterprises attempts to market the bourbon, will Duke succeed in an anti-dilution action? Is the mark famous? Is there a likelihood of dilution? By blurring or by tarnishment?

3.) ”Cybersquatting” and “Cyberpiracy”

1125(d) Cyberpiracy prevention

(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—

(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and

(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—

(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;

(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or

(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.

(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

(V) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VII) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VIII) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and

(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c).

(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.

(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee.

(E) As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

Notes

Section 1125(d), the so-called cyberpiracy or cybersquatting provision, is part of a continuing attempt by the courts and Congress to delineate the relationship between trademark law on the one hand and internet domain names on the other. What is the internet’s Domain Name System?

The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical distributed naming system for computers, services, or any resource connected to the Internet or a private network. It associates various [types of] information with domain names assigned to each of the participating entities. Most prominently, it translates easily memorized domain names to the numerical IP addresses needed for the purpose of locating computer services and devices worldwide. The Domain Name System is an essential component of the functionality of the Internet. An often-used analogy to explain the Domain Name System is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the domain name www.example.com translates to the addresses 93.184.216.119 (IPv4) and 2606:2800:220:6d:26bf:1447: 1097:aa7 (IPv6). Unlike a phone book, the DNS can be quickly updated, allowing a service’s location on the network to change without affecting the end users, who continue to use the same host name. Users take advantage of this when they use meaningful Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), and e-mail addresses without having to know how the computer actually locates the services.[1]

Domain names are organized in subdomains of this DNS system. You are probably familiar with the suffixes indicating the top level domain names (TLD) such as .com, .org, .edu and so on. You may also know the country code top level domain names such as .uk and .fr. What happens when this domain name system meets trademark law? This is another of the central themes in this book—technological happenstance produces conflicts with a set of legal premises, conflicts that the law has to work out.

At the beginning of the trademark section we discussed the fact that trademark law does not convey ownership of a word. Bass for ale does not infringe Bass for electronics or circuit boards, nor is it infringed by bass fishing companies or those who want to teach you to play a bass guitar like Jaco Pastorius. (Not that anyone could.) The word bass is not “rivalrous” and trademark law does not seek to make it rivalrous, unless 1.) its use would cause a likelihood of confusion or 2.) in the case of famous marks, there would be blurring or tarnishment. But there is only one bass.com—the most desirable top level domain name. Who is to own it and what does trademark law say about that? (It is owned by Anheuser-Busch, as it turns out.) True, there are other top level domains and their suffixes offer some ability to segregate different types of activities just as non digital reality allows many uses of the word to coexist. For example, .org was originally reserved for non-profits, though it is now unrestricted. (Bass.org is devoted to a now defunct mailing list discussing playing the electronic bass.) .edu signifies educational activities, so you expect duke.edu to be different from duke.com (which at present merely points to Duke Energy and Duke University and carries an “under construction” message). .xxx is reserved for porn sites. .gov is reserved for government sites, so Whitehouse.gov will get you the White House web site, while Whitehouse.com will get you advertisements for Ukrainian dating sites (to use the most salubrious example there). And finally, the country level domain names such as .uk and .fr mean that a little of the geographic boundedness that trademark relied on (no one in Portugal knows Delta faucets, but they all know Delta coffee) can be restored. It should be noted, though, that there is no requirement that companies only use country level domain names pointing to their nation, and that many entities use the country domain names for reasons other than nationality. .tv is popular for television related sites, though it really signifies Tuvalu.

Despite the multiple uses made possible by the varied TLDs and CCTLDs (country-code top level domains) there is clearly a shortage of desirable domains for those businesses or activities that both use the same word. A body of law that presumes that a word is “rivalrous” only within the bounds of a type of commercial activity (because that is all the trademark covers) meets a technology where the use of the word is rival in a different way. One immediate problem (though hardly the only one) is that of “cybersquatting” or “cyberpiracy.” While the term is actually a broad one, as you can see from 1125(d), the core prohibition against cyberpiracy is aimed at a practice that was most prominent in the early days of the web. The cybersquatter is the person who buys up a domain name that a trademark owner might want and has not yet purchased. Often, he or she does not use the domain in commerce. (Doing that might have triggered conventional trademark liability, depending on what goods and services were being offered and whether they were similar to the trademark owner’s products.) Instead, he or she leaves the site with an “under construction” sign and offers it to the trademark owner at a price, generally a hefty price. 1125(d) was designed to deal with this problem.[2] But what is the nature of the “problem”?

PROBLEM 9-2

John Wayne, Daddy Warbucks and Joe Dotcom all have interesting business opportunities—at different moments in history. Wayne reads the speeches of the politicians and believes that a transcontinental railroad must be coming soon. He pores over maps and realizes that there are certain geographical choke points, valleys through which the tracks must pass. Quietly, he starts buying up the land. He can do so for pennies, because it is unattractive and not very fertile. He has no intention of farming himself, he just waits for the railroad to come to town at which point he will confidently name a very high price. The cost of bypassing the valley would be even greater.

Years later, Warbucks is also keeping a close eye on the news. He believes that a new World War is about to break out. Knowing that aviation gasoline and various metals will be in high demand, he manages to corner a nice chunk of the market on them, buying “options” to purchase at a set price. He believes the prices will skyrocket and he will be able to flip his options to eager, even desperate, buyers. He has no intention of flying planes or smelting metal himself. He just wants to “bring the information to market” and make a lot of money doing so. He is proud of his “all-American” ingenuity in figuring out where the market is going.

Joe Dotcom is an early user of the internet. He believes this will be the future of commerce and speech and he thinks that incumbent industries will be slow to realize this. He goes on a spending spree, buying up Ford.com, Pfizer.com, Cocacola.com and many others. He has no intention of using the domains, he is simply “safeguarding them” he says. When the companies awake to the power of the internet, he will be ready with an offer to sell the domain. In the case of companies competing for the same domain, such as bass.com, he will propose a simple auction. For the others, he will propose that they ask themselves how much it is worth to have the correct domain name. He is sure they can agree on a price. And if they cannot, he is asked? Then the domain will not be transferred, the way it normally goes in a market if a willing buyer and a willing seller cannot agree to a price. “It is not as though anyone will be confused by the big ‘under construction’ notices that are currently the only thing on those pages,” he tells you.

Are Warbucks and Wayne breaking the law? If not, why is Dotcom? What is he doing that is different from what they are doing? (This is not a rhetorical question; please list the differences.) How do the words cyberpiracy and cybersquatting morally frame the issue? What are the arguments that it is socially better (more efficient, more just) for him to be forbidden from this kind of activity and for the trademark owners to be given the legal right to compel transfer of the domains at no cost to them? Are you convinced?

Lamparello v. Falwell

420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005)

MOTZ, Circuit Judge.

Christopher Lamparello appeals the district court’s order enjoining him from maintaining a gripe website critical of Reverend Jerry Falwell. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.

I.

Reverend Falwell is “a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs.” Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988). He holds the common law trademarks “Jerry Falwell” and “Falwell,” and the registered trademark “Listen America with Jerry Falwell.” Jerry Falwell Ministries can be found online at “www.falwell.com,” a website which receives 9,000 hits (or visits) per day.

Lamparello registered the domain name “www.fallwell.com” on February 11, 1999, after hearing Reverend Falwell give an interview “in which he expressed opinions about gay people and homosexuality that [Lamparello] considered . . . offensive.” Lamparello created a website at that domain name to respond to what he believed were “untruths about gay people.” Lamparello’s website included headlines such as “Bible verses that Dr. Falwell chooses to ignore” and “Jerry Falwell has been bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16) against his gay and lesbian neighbors for a long time.” The site also contained indepth criticism of Reverend Falwell’s views. For example, the website stated:

Dr. Falwell says that he is on the side of truth. He says that he will preach that homosexuality is a sin until the day he dies. But we believe that if the reverend were to take another thoughtful look at the scriptures, he would discover that they have been twisted around to support an anti-gay political agenda . . . at the expense of the gospel.

Although the interior pages of Lamparello’s website did not contain a disclaimer, the homepage prominently stated, “This website is NOT affiliated with Jerry Falwell or his ministry”; advised, “If you would like to visit Rev. Falwell’s website, you may click here”; and provided a hyperlink to Reverend Falwell’s website.

At one point, Lamparello’s website included a link to the Amazon.com webpage for a book that offered interpretations of the Bible that Lamparello favored, but the parties agree that Lamparello has never sold goods or services on his website. The parties also agree that “Lamparello’s domain name and web site at www.fallwell.com,” which received only 200 hits per day, “had no measurable impact on the quantity of visits to [Reverend Falwell’s] web site at www.falwell.com.”

Nonetheless, Reverend Falwell sent Lamparello letters in October 2001 and June 2003 demanding that he cease and desist from using www.fallwell.com or any variation of Reverend Falwell’s name as a domain name. Ultimately, Lamparello filed this action against Reverend Falwell and his ministries (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Reverend Falwell”), seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. Reverend Falwell counter-claimed, alleging trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1126 and the common law of Virginia, and cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

The district court granted summary judgment to Reverend Falwell, enjoined Lamparello from using Reverend Falwell’s mark at www.fallwell.com, and required Lamparello to transfer the domain name to Reverend Falwell. However, the court denied Reverend Falwell’s request for statutory damages or attorney fees, reasoning that the “primary motive” of Lamparello’s website was “to put forth opinions on issues that were contrary to those of [Reverend Falwell]” and “not to take away monies or to profit.”

Lamparello appeals the district court’s order; Reverend Falwell cross-appeals the denial of statutory damages and attorney fees.

II.

We first consider Reverend Falwell’s claims of trademark infringement and false designation of origin. . . .

Trademark law serves the important functions of protecting product identification, providing consumer information, and encouraging the production of quality goods and services. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co. (1995). But protections “‘against unfair competition’” cannot be transformed into “‘rights to control language.’” CPC Int’l, Inc. v. Skippy Inc. (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mark A. Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense, 108 Yale L.J. 1687, 1710–11 (1999)). “Such a transformation” would raise serious First Amendment concerns because it would limit the ability to discuss the products or criticize the conduct of companies that may be of widespread public concern and importance. Much useful social and commercial discourse would be all but impossible if speakers were under threat of an infringement lawsuit every time they made reference to a person, company or product by using its trademark.

Lamparello and his amici argue at length that application of the Lanham Act must be restricted to “commercial speech” to assure that trademark law does not become a tool for unconstitutional censorship. The Sixth Circuit has endorsed this view, see Taubman Co. v. Webfeats (6th Cir. 2003), and the Ninth Circuit recently has done so as well, see Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer (9th Cir. 2005).

In its two most significant recent amendments to the Lanham Act, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (“FTDA”) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (“ACPA”), Congress left little doubt that it did not intend for trademark laws to impinge [on] the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators. The dilution statute applies to only a “commercial use in commerce of a mark,” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1), and explicitly states that the “[n]oncommercial use of a mark” is not actionable. § 1125(c)(4). Congress explained that this language was added to “adequately address[] legitimate First Amendment concerns,” and “incorporate[d] the concept of ‘commercial’ speech from the ‘commercial speech’ doctrine.” Similarly, Congress directed that in determining whether an individual has engaged in cybersquatting, the courts may consider whether the person’s use of the mark is a “bona fide noncommercial or fair use.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV). The legislature believed this provision necessary to “protect[ ] the rights of Internet users and the interests of all Americans in free speech and protected uses of trademarked names for such things as parody, comment, criticism, comparative advertising, news reporting, etc.”

In contrast, the trademark infringement and false designation of origin provisions of the Lanham Act (Sections 32 and 43(a), respectively) do not employ the term “noncommercial.” They do state, however, that they pertain only to the use of a mark “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services,” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), or “in connection with any goods or services,” § 1125(a)(1). But courts have been reluctant to define those terms narrowly. Rather, as the Second Circuit has explained, “[t]he term ‘services’ has been interpreted broadly” and so “[t]he Lanham Act has . . . been applied to defendants furnishing a wide variety of non-commercial public and civic benefits.” United We Stand Am., Inc. v. United We Stand, Am. N.Y., Inc. (2d Cir. 1997). Similarly, in PETA we noted that a website need not actually sell goods or services for the use of a mark in that site’s domain name to constitute a use “‘in connection with’ goods or services.” PETA; see also Taubman Co. (concluding that website with two links to websites of for-profit entities violated the Lanham Act).

Thus, even if we accepted Lamparello’s contention that Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act apply only to commercial speech, we would still face the difficult question of what constitutes such speech under those provisions. In the case at hand, we need not resolve that question or determine whether Sections 32 and 43(a) apply exclusively to commercial speech because Reverend Falwell’s claims of trademark infringement and false designation fail for a more obvious reason. The hallmark of such claims is a likelihood of confusion—and there is no likelihood of confusion here.

B. 1.

“[T]he use of a competitor’s mark that does not cause confusion as to source is permissible.” Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc. (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Lamparello can only be liable for infringement and false designation if his use of Reverend Falwell’s mark would be likely to cause confusion as to the source of the website found at www.fallwell.com. This likelihood-of-confusion test “generally strikes a comfortable balance” between the First Amendment and the rights of markholders.

We have identified seven factors helpful in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists as to the source of a work, but “not all these factors are always relevant or equally emphasized in each case.” Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple (4th Cir. 1984) The factors are: “(a) the strength or distinctiveness of the mark; (b) the similarity of the two marks; (c) the similarity of the goods/services the marks identify; (d) the similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their businesses; (e) the similarity of the advertising used by the two parties; (f) the defendant’s intent; (g) actual confusion.”

Reverend Falwell’s mark is distinctive, and the domain name of Lamparello’s website, www.fallwell.com, closely resembles it. But, although Lamparello and Reverend Falwell employ similar marks online, Lamparello’s website looks nothing like Reverend Falwell’s; indeed, Lamparello has made no attempt to imitate Reverend Falwell’s website. Moreover, Reverend Falwell does not even argue that Lamparello’s website constitutes advertising or a facility for business, let alone a facility or advertising similar to that of Reverend Falwell. Furthermore, Lamparello clearly created his website intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.

Most importantly, Reverend Falwell and Lamparello do not offer similar goods or services. Rather they offer opposing ideas and commentary. Reverend Falwell’s mark identifies his spiritual and political views; the website at www.fallwell.com criticizes those very views. After even a quick glance at the content of the website at www.fallwell.com, no one seeking Reverend Falwell’s guidance would be misled by the domain name—www.fallwell.com—into believing Reverend Falwell authorized the content of that website. No one would believe that Reverend Falwell sponsored a site criticizing himself, his positions, and his interpretations of the Bible.[3]3

Finally, the fact that people contacted Reverend Falwell’s ministry to report that they found the content at www.fallwell.com antithetical to Reverend Falwell’s views does not illustrate, as Reverend Falwell claims, that the website engendered actual confusion. To the contrary, the anecdotal evidence Reverend Falwell submitted shows that those searching for Reverend Falwell’s site and arriving instead at Lamparello’s site quickly realized that Reverend Falwell was not the source of the content therein.

For all of these reasons, it is clear that the undisputed record evidences no likelihood of confusion. In fact, Reverend Falwell even conceded at oral argument that those viewing the content of Lamparello’s website probably were unlikely to confuse Reverend Falwell with the source of that material.

2.

Nevertheless, Reverend Falwell argues that he is entitled to prevail under the “initial interest confusion” doctrine. This relatively new and sporadically applied doctrine holds that “the Lanham Act forbids a competitor from luring potential customers away from a producer by initially passing off its goods as those of the producer’s, even if confusion as to the source of the goods is dispelled by the time any sales are consummated.” Dorr-Oliver. According to Reverend Falwell, this doctrine requires us to compare his mark with Lamparello’s website domain name, www.fallwell.com, without considering the content of Lamparello’s website. Reverend Falwell argues that some people who misspell his name may go to www.fallwell.com assuming it is his site, thus giving Lamparello an unearned audience—albeit one that quickly disappears when it realizes it has not reached Reverend Falwell’s site. This argument fails for two reasons.

First, we have never adopted the initial interest confusion theory; rather, we have followed a very different mode of analysis, requiring courts to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists by “examin[ing] the allegedly infringing use in the context in which it is seen by the ordinary consumer.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L & L Wings, Inc. (4th Cir. 1992).

Contrary to Reverend Falwell’s arguments, we did not abandon this approach in PETA. Our inquiry in PETA was limited to whether Doughney’s use of the domain name “www.peta.org” constituted a successful enough parody of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that no one was likely to believe www.peta.org was sponsored or endorsed by that organization. For a parody to be successful, it “must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory—messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.” PETA. Doughney argued that his domain name conveyed the first message (that it was PETA’s website) and that the content of his website conveyed the requisite second message (that it was not PETA’s site). Although “[t]he website’s content ma[de] it clear that it [wa]s not related to PETA,” we concluded that the website’s content could not convey the requisite second message because the site’s content “[wa]s not conveyed simultaneously with the first message, [i.e., the domain name itself,] as required to be considered a parody.” Accordingly, we found the “district court properly rejected Doughney’s parody defense.”

PETA simply outlines the parameters of the parody defense; it does not adopt the initial interest confusion theory or otherwise diminish the necessity of examining context when determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists. Indeed, in PETA itself, rather than embracing a new approach, we reiterated that “[t]o determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, a court should not consider how closely a fragment of a given use duplicates the trademark, but must instead consider whether the use in its entirety creates a likelihood of confusion.” When dealing with domain names, this means a court must evaluate an allegedly infringing domain name in conjunction with the content of the website identified by the domain name.[4]4

Moreover, even if we did endorse the initial interest confusion theory, that theory would not assist Reverend Falwell here because it provides no basis for liability in circumstances such as these. The few appellate courts that have followed the Ninth Circuit and imposed liability under this theory for using marks on the Internet have done so only in cases involving a factor utterly absent here—one business’s use of another’s mark for its own financial gain.

Profiting financially from initial interest confusion is thus a key element for imposition of liability under this theory.[5]5 When an alleged infringer does not compete with the markholder for sales, “some initial confusion will not likely facilitate free riding on the goodwill of another mark, or otherwise harm the user claiming infringement. Where confusion has little or no meaningful effect in the marketplace, it is of little or no consequence in our analysis.” Checkpoint Sys. For this reason, even the Ninth Circuit has stated that a firm is not liable for using another’s mark in its domain name if it “could not financially capitalize on [a] misdirected consumer [looking for the markholder’s site] even if it so desired.” Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002).

This critical element—use of another firm’s mark to capture the markholder’s customers and profits—simply does not exist when the alleged infringer establishes a gripe site that criticizes the markholder. See Hannibal Travis, The Battle For Mindshare: The Emerging Consensus that the First Amendment Protects Corporate Criticism and Parody on the Internet, 10 Va. J.L. & Tech. 3, 85 (Winter 2005) (“The premise of the ‘initial interest’ confusion cases is that by using the plaintiff’s trademark to divert its customers, the defendant is engaging in the old ‘bait and switch.’ But because . . . Internet users who find [gripe sites] are not sold anything, the mark may be the ‘bait,’ but there is simply no ‘switch.’”).[6]6 Applying the initial interest confusion theory to gripe sites like Lamparello’s would enable the markholder to insulate himself from criticism—or at least to minimize access to it. We have already condemned such uses of the Lanham Act, stating that a markholder cannot “‘shield itself from criticism by forbidding the use of its name in commentaries critical of its conduct.’” CPC Int’l (quoting L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc. (1st Cir. 1987)). “[J]ust because speech is critical of a corporation and its business practices is not a sufficient reason to enjoin the speech.”

In sum, even if we were to accept the initial interest confusion theory, that theory would not apply in the case at hand. Rather, to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists as to the source of a gripe site like that at issue in this case, a court must look not only to the allegedly infringing domain name, but also to the underlying content of the website. When we do so here, it is clear, as explained above, that no likelihood of confusion exists. Therefore, the district court erred in granting Reverend Falwell summary judgment on his infringement, false designation, and unfair competition claims.

III.

We evaluate Reverend Falwell’s cybersquatting claim separately because the elements of a cybersquatting violation differ from those of traditional Lanham Act violations. To prevail on a cybersquatting claim, Reverend Falwell must show that Lamparello: (1) “had a bad faith intent to profit from using the [www.fallwell.com] domain name,” and (2) the domain name www.fallwell.com “is identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, the distinctive and famous [Falwell] mark.” PETA (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A)).

“The paradigmatic harm that the ACPA was enacted to eradicate” is “the practice of cybersquatters registering several hundred domain names in an effort to sell them to the legitimate owners of the mark.” Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse (6th Cir. 2004). The Act was also intended to stop the registration of multiple marks with the hope of selling them to the highest bidder, “distinctive marks to defraud consumers” or “to engage in counterfeiting activities,” and “well-known marks to prey on consumer confusion by misusing the domain name to divert customers from the mark owner’s site to the cybersquatter’s own site, many of which are pornography sites that derive advertising revenue based on the number of visits, or ‘hits,’ the site receives.” The Act was not intended to prevent “noncommercial uses of a mark, such as for comment, criticism, parody, news reporting, etc.,” and thus they “are beyond the scope” of the ACPA.

To distinguish abusive domain name registrations from legitimate ones, the ACPA directs courts to consider nine nonexhaustive factors:

(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

(V) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VII) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VIII) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and

(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i).

These factors attempt “to balance the property interests of trademark owners with the legitimate interests of Internet users and others who seek to make lawful uses of others’ marks, including for purposes such as comparative advertising, comment, criticism, parody, news reporting, fair use, etc.” H.R.Rep. No. 106-412. “The first four [factors] suggest circumstances that may tend to indicate an absence of bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a mark, and the others suggest circumstances that may tend to indicate that such bad-faith intent exists.” However, “[t]here is no simple formula for evaluating and weighing these factors. For example, courts do not simply count up which party has more factors in its favor after the evidence is in.” Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names (4th Cir. 2002). In fact, because use of these listed factors is permissive, “[w]e need not . . . march through” them all in every case. Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (4th Cir. 2001). “The factors are given to courts as a guide, not as a substitute for careful thinking about whether the conduct at issue is motivated by a bad faith intent to profit.” Lucas Nursery & Landscaping.

After close examination of the undisputed facts involved in this case, we can only conclude that Reverend Falwell cannot demonstrate that Lamparello “had a bad faith intent to profit from using the [www.fallwell.com] domain name.” Lamparello clearly employed www.fallwell.com simply to criticize Reverend Falwell’s views. Factor IV of the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV), counsels against finding a bad faith intent to profit in such circumstances because “use of a domain name for purposes of . . . comment, [and] criticism,” constitutes a “bona fide noncommercial or fair use” under the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV).[7]7 That Lamparello provided a link to an Amazon.com webpage selling a book he favored does not diminish the communicative function of his website. The use of a domain name to engage in criticism or commentary “even where done for profit” does not alone evidence a bad faith intent to profit, and Lamparello did not even stand to gain financially from sales of the book at Amazon.com. Thus factor IV weighs heavily in favor of finding Lamparello lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of the domain name.

Equally important, Lamparello has not engaged in the type of conduct described in the statutory factors as typifying the bad faith intent to profit essential to a successful cybersquatting claim. First, we have already held, supra Part II.B, that Lamparello’s domain name does not create a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation. Accordingly, Lamparello has not engaged in the type of conduct—”creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site,” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(V)—described as an indicator of a bad faith intent to profit in factor V of the statute.

Factors VI and VIII also counsel against finding a bad faith intent to profit here. Lamparello has made no attempt—or even indicated a willingness—”to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to [Reverend Falwell] or any third party for financial gain.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(VI). Similarly, Lamparello has not registered “multiple domain names,” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(VIII); rather, the record indicates he has registered only one. Thus, Lamparello’s conduct is not of the suspect variety described in factors VI and VIII of the Act.

Notably, the case at hand differs markedly from those in which the courts have found a bad faith intent to profit from domain names used for websites engaged in political commentary or parody. For example, in PETA we found the registrant of www.peta.org engaged in cybersquatting because www.peta.org was one of fifty to sixty domain names Doughney had registered, PETA, and because Doughney had evidenced a clear intent to sell www.peta.org to PETA, stating that PETA should try to “‘settle’ with him and ‘make him an offer.’” Similarly, in Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy (8th Cir. 2004), the Eighth Circuit found an anti-abortion activist who had registered domain names incorporating famous marks such as “Washington Post” liable for cybersquatting because he had registered almost seventy domain names, had offered to stop using the Washington Post mark if the newspaper published an opinion piece by him on its editorial page, and posted content that created a likelihood of confusion as to whether the famous markholders sponsored the anti-abortion sites and “ha[d] taken positions on hotly contested issues.” In contrast, Lamparello did not register multiple domain names, he did not offer to transfer them for valuable consideration, and he did not create a likelihood of confusion.

Instead, Lamparello, like the plaintiffs in two cases recently decided by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, created a gripe site. Both courts expressly refused to find that gripe sites located at domain names nearly identical to the marks at issue violated the ACPA. In TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell (5th Cir. 2004), Joseph Maxwell, a customer of homebuilder TMI, registered the domain name “www.trendmakerhome.com,” which differed by only one letter from TMI’s mark, TrendMaker Homes, and its domain name, “www.trendmakerhomes.com.” Maxwell used the site to complain about his experience with TMI and to list the name of a contractor whose work pleased him. After his registration expired, Maxwell registered “www.trendmakerhome.info.” TMI then sued, alleging cybersquatting. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that Maxwell violated the ACPA, reasoning that his site was noncommercial and designed only “to inform potential customers about a negative experience with the company.”

Similarly, in Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, a customer of Lucas Nursery registered the domain name “www.lucasnursery.com” and posted her dissatisfaction with the company’s landscaping services. Because the registrant, Grosse, like Lamparello, registered a single domain name, the Sixth Circuit concluded that her conduct did not constitute that which Congress intended to proscribe—i.e., the registration of multiple domain names. Lucas Nursery & Landscaping. Noting that Grosse’s gripe site did not create any confusion as to sponsorship and that she had never attempted to sell the domain name to the markholder, the court found that Grosse’s conduct was not actionable under the ACPA. The court explained: “One of the ACPA’s main objectives is the protection of consumers from slick internet peddlers who trade on the names and reputations of established brands. The practice of informing fellow consumers of one’s experience with a particular service provider is surely not inconsistent with this ideal.”

Like Maxwell and Grosse before him, Lamparello has not evidenced a bad faith intent to profit under the ACPA. To the contrary, he has used www.fallwell.com to engage in the type of “comment[] [and] criticism” that Congress specifically stated militates against a finding of bad faith intent to profit. And he has neither registered multiple domain names nor attempted to transfer www.fallwell.com for valuable consideration. We agree with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits that, given these circumstances, the use of a mark in a domain name for a gripe site criticizing the markholder does not constitute cybersquatting.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, Lamparello, rather than Reverend Falwell, is entitled to summary judgment on all counts. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of judgment for Lamparello.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PROBLEM 9-3

Lamparello is from the 4th Circuit, the same Circuit that decided PETA (excerpted in Chapter 7). Are the two cases consistent? In your answer you should first offer the strongest reasons that they are not—listing arguments, decisions on points of law, legal definitions, or jurisprudential approaches towards trademark that you think make the two decisions inconsistent, not just as a matter of law, but as a matter of trademark philosophy. Then you should make the strongest counter arguments. In particular, you should list the distinguishing features between the two cases that actually show that the decisions—though one favors plaintiff and one defendant—are consistent. Which side of the debate do you think is stronger, and why? To the extent you do think the cases represent diverging views, with which do you agree, and why?

Notes

[←1]

“Domain Name System” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System (visited July 12, 2014).

[←2]

§1125(d) is largely mirrored by an agreement called the UDRP (or Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) imposed by the Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN effectively runs the decentralized registrar system by which new websites are registered. Anyone registering a domain name with an ICANN sanctioned registrar must follow that agreement, which sets up an arbitration system to resolve domain name disputes. (The UDRP is included in the statutory supplement.)

All registrars must follow the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (often referred to as the “UDRP”). Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. Disputes alleged to arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider. To invoke the policy, a trademark owner should either (a) file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder (or where appropriate an in-rem action concerning the domain name) or (b) in cases of abusive registration submit a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en (last visited June 22nd, 2015). While trademark law provides the broad outlines of the rules, on a day-to-day basis, disputes are more likely to be settled in the cheaper and quicker arbitration system outlined in the UDRP. Yet the UDRP arbitrators will often consult the same principles that you are reading about in these trademark cases.

[←3]

3 If Lamparello had neither criticized Reverend Falwell by name nor expressly rejected Reverend Falwell’s teachings, but instead simply had quoted Bible passages and offered interpretations of them subtly different from those of Reverend Falwell, this would be a different case. For, while a gripe site, or a website dedicated to criticism of the markholder, will seldom create a likelihood of confusion, a website purporting to be the official site of the markholder and, for example, articulating positions that could plausibly have come from the markholder may well create a likelihood of confusion.

[←4]

4 Contrary to Reverend Falwell’s suggestions, this rule does not change depending on how similar the domain name or title is to the mark. Hence, Reverend Falwell’s assertion that he objects only to Lamparello using the domain name www.fallwell.com and has no objection to Lamparello posting his criticisms at “www.falwelliswrong.com,” or a similar domain name, does not entitle him to a different evaluation rule. Rather it has long been established that even when alleged infringers use the very marks at issue in titles, courts look to the underlying content to determine whether the titles create a likelihood of confusion as to source.

[←5]

5 Offline uses of marks found to cause actionable initial interest confusion also have involved financial gain. See Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 204 (5th Cir. 1998); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 260 (2d Cir. 1987). And even those courts recognizing the initial interest confusion theory of liability but finding no actionable initial confusion involved one business’s use of another’s mark for profit.

[←6]

6 Although the appellate courts that have adopted the initial interest confusion theory have only applied it to profit-seeking uses of another’s mark, the district courts have not so limited the application of the theory. Without expressly referring to this theory, two frequently-discussed district court cases have held that using another’s domain name to post content antithetical to the markholder constitutes infringement. See Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, No. 97 Civ. 0629, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (table) (finding use of domain name “www.plannedparenthood.com” to provide links to passages of anti-abortion book constituted infringement); Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F.Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998) (table) (finding use of “www.jewsforjesus.org” to criticize religious group constituted infringement). We think both cases were wrongly decided to the extent that in determining whether the domain names were confusing, the courts did not consider whether the websites’ content would dispel any confusion. In expanding the initial interest confusion theory of liability, these cases cut it off from its moorings to the detriment of the First Amendment.

[←7]

7 We note that factor IV does not protect a faux noncommercial site, that is, a noncommercial site created by the registrant for the sole purpose of avoiding liability under the FTDA, which exempts noncommercial uses of marks, see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)(B), or under the ACPA. As explained by the Senate Report discussing the ACPA, an individual cannot avoid liability for registering and attempting to sell a hundred domain names incorporating famous marks by posting noncommercial content at those domain names. See S.Rep. No. 106-140, 1999 WL 594571, at *14 (citing Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)). But Lamparello’s sole purpose for registering www.fallwell.com was to criticize Reverend Falwell, and this noncommercial use was not a ruse to avoid liability. Therefore, factor IV indicates that Lamparello did not have a bad faith intent to profit.

Table of Contents

Notes