Monday, May 10, 2010

Ninth Circuit enjoins unauthorized sale of “VW” badges on a marquee license plate

This is a decision I think is best categorized as right decision, wrong reasoning. The declaratory judgment plaintiff in Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., No. 08-16005 (9th Cir. May 6, 2010) sold several auto accessories displaying the VW design, including a “marquee” license plate with a VW design badge mounted on it. It purchased the badge from authorized VW dealers, altered them so they could be stuck on a marquee license plate, then stuck them on the plate and sold them. At the point of sale, Au-Tomotive Gold used a disclaimer stating that the plates were not VW plates.

In a previous decision, the 9th Circuit held that these products would likely create post-sale confusion among non-purchasers who see the license plate—which did not themselves in any way identify Au-Tomotive Gold as the manufacturer. But the 9th Circuit remanded for consideration of the “first sale” defense.

This time around, a different panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of the defense. It held that the first sale defense did not apply because post-sale, nonpurchasers viewing the license plate were likely to think it was a VW product. The Court seemed to distinguish—but did not explain why—cases where the re-seller simply repackaged the trademark owners goods and placed a label on the repackaged goods disclosing that they had been repackaged. The Court also cited, but stated it was not relying on, cases where a purchaser bought a trademarked good, altered it, and re-sold it without disclosing the alteration.

The Court also seemed quite concerned with Au-Tomotive Gold “free-riding” on the demand for VW emblems on marquee license plates.

To me, this is a puzzling and unsatisfying decision. If the first appeal turned on likelihood of confusion, and the remanded issue (first sale) also turned on the same finding, then why the remand? I think the court would have done better to rely on the cases it said it wasn’t relying on: those that hold that folks who materially alter trademarked goods can’t re-sell them under the original trademark. I guess the second panel was in a pickle because the first panel remanded on the wrong issue.

(Hat tip to Locke Lord associate Kathryn Barrett for alerting me to this decision)

No comments: