6th Circuit Gives Victoria's Secret a Dilution Win Against Victor's Little Secret in Round 2

In a fractured decision, the Sixth Circuit yesterday revisited the trademark dilution dispute between Victoria’s Secret and the Kentucky “adult” store, Victor’s Little Secret. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Victor’s Secret Stores, Inc.¸, No. 08-5793 (6th Cir. May 19, 2010). The case had previously risen all the way up to the Supreme Court, which in 2003 held that Victoria’s Secret had failed to prove actual dilution under the old dilution law and remanded the case. In response, Congress quickly expanded the dilution law to cover “likelihood of dilution.”

In essence, the Sixth Circuit interpreted the revised law to create a rule that puts a finger on the scales of justice in favor of a mark owner when the junior user uses a mark that (1) creates an association with the senior user’s mark and (2) is used in connection with sex-related products. One judge in the majority called it a “rebuttable presumption” or a “res ipsa loquitur-like effect.” (Opinion of Merritt, J.) The other judge in the majority called it an “inference.” (Opinion of Gibbons, J.) The dissenting judge (Moore, J.) called it “wrong.”

The dissent noted that the only evidence in the record was that one army officer at a nearby base was offended by the junior user’s mark. The dissent explained that evidence that one person is offended by the junior user’s mark or commercial sex-related activities is not the same thing as evidence that the senior user’s reputation has been tainted. The dissenter noted that this paucity of likely reputational harm is especially significant where the evidence showed that the senior user (Victoria’s Secret) uses its mark in ways that relate to sex as well.

I am inclined to agree with the dissent—based on the facts sets forth in the opinion—on the failure of the plaintiff’s evidentiary showing here. I agree Congress intended to liberalize the dilution law by expanding it to be triggered by likely dilution. But I don’t think Congress intended that expansion to mean that there should be a presumption or inference in the absence of any evidence of likely harm.

6th Circuit decision affirming dismissal of TM infringement complaint under rule 12(b)(6)

In a decision with potentially important procedural ramifications, the 6th Circuit today affirmed the rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a trademark infringement complaint for failure to state a claim.

In Hensley Mfg., Inc. v. ProPride, Inc., No. 08-1834 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2009), the plaintiff alleged it was the owner of the HENSLEY mark, which it purchased from Jim Hensley when it purchased Hensley’s trailer hitch business. Jim Hensley then started working with a competing company (ProPride). At ProPride, Hensley designed a competing trailer hitch, and to promote it, ProPride created some print advertisements and webpages that talked about “the Jim Hensley Hitch Story,” described Jim Hensley’s history of designing trailer hitches at Hensley Mfg., and touted how he has now designed an even better hitch at ProPride. The ads and webpages all contained a disclaimer that Jim Hensley is no longer affiliated with Hensley Mfg. The complaint attached the ads and print-outs of the webpages.

The district court dismissed the complaint under rule 12(b)(6) finding that the allegations and attachments showed that the fair use defense applied as a matter of law.

The 6th Circuit affirmed. The court held that it need not get into the likelihood of confusion factors because the complaint and its attachments showed, as a matter of law, that the word “Hensley” was not being used as a trademark (i.e., an indicator of source). Examining the attachments closely, the court held that they conclusively demonstrated instead that the name “Hensley” was being used lawfully solely to refer to the individual accomplishments and reputation of Jim Hensley, and the attached ads and webpages did not create a likelihood of confusion as to source.

The 6th Circuit also expressly approved of the district court’s having based the dismissal on the “fair use” defense, even though, by first moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants hadn’t even pleaded it yet. The 6th Circuit reasoned that there’s nothing wrong with dismissing a complaint where the allegations conclusively establish an affirmative defense as a matter of law.

IMPLICATIONS: One of the lessons here might be to be careful not to plead yourself out of court. Specifically, it might be useful to consider whether the complaint in this case could have been dismissed under rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff hadn’t attached copies of the offending ads and webpages. On the other hand, the 6th Circuit referenced at the outset the (arguably heightened) “plausibility” pleading standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), although it did not ultimately appear to rest the dismissal in any significant way on the “implausibility” of the factual allegations in the complaint itself. So it may conversely be useful to consider if there is such a thing as a trademark complaint that is too bare-boned. At minimum, however, in any trademark case where a plaintiff is considering unusually detailed factual allegations and/or attaching copies of the allegedly infringing uses to the complaint, the pleader would do well to consider whether the pleading would survive the sort of analysis the 6th Circuit used here.

6th Circuit decision concerning a spat between wineries over trademark use of a geographically descriptive AVA name

Just because the 6th Circuit doesn't encompass Napa Valley doesn't mean it can't mediate spats between wineries. In Leelanau Wine Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., No. 06-2391 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2007), the 6th Circuit confronted a claim that the winery name "Chateau de Leelanau Vineyard and Winery" infringed plaintiff's registration for LEELANAU CELLARS. Michigan's Leelanau Peninsula is a governmentally-approved American Viticultural Area (AVA).

While the 6th Circuit's review of the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff was largely fact-intensive, it did not that the common element of the two marks (Leelanau) is geographically descriptive, and therefore weak, and this weakness was highlighted by the donning of AVA status to Leelanau Peninsula. The opinion also contained some useful discussion concerning factors that affect the admissibility and probative value of confusion surveys.

6th Circuit Decides Interesting Copyright and Trademark Case Involving Repackaging and Reselling of Audio Recordings of Books

First the copyright part of the case. Under copyright law, the legitimate owner of a “copy or a phonorecord” can “sell or otherwise dispose of them” without the consent of the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a). There’s an exception, however, in § 109(b)(1)(A). It says that:

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording . . . and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, . . . the owner of a particular phonorecord . . . may [not], for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord . . . by rental, lease, or lending . . . .”

This exception came about in the early 1980s because record companies were concerned that they were losing too much business through record and tape rentals (to people would simply copy the rented music). In Brilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Communications, Inc., No. 05-1209 (Jan. 26, 2007), the question was whether this exception applied to rentals of audio recordings of books. The Sixth Circuit though that the statutory language could go either way. (I had to read this part of the opinion three times to see how it could be read NOT to include recordings of books, but I digress.) Because it considered the language capable of going either way, the court jumped into the dreaded legislative history and discussed evanescent notions of “policy.” To make a long story short, the court decided that, in 1984, Congress was concerned only with music recordings. Nobody mentioned books on tape at all. And as to policy, the court decided that exceptions to the first sale doctrine should be construed narrowly, since such exceptions would “upset the bargain” in copyright law between copyright owners (who want to protect their creative works) and the rights of owners of stuff (to do what they want with their stuff). So it concluded that first sale doctrine exonerated the defendant on the copyright count.

The trademark claim was that the defendant was repackaging and re-selling the audio books in violation of the Lanham Act. The plaintiff sold two different versions of the audio books: one for consumers and one for libraries. It claimed that the defendant was taking the consumer versions and labeling them as library versions. The court (correctly in my view) upheld the trademark claim in the face of a first sale defense because (a) the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s labeling didn’t make clear that the product was repackaged, plus (b) the goods weren’t “genuine” because there were differences between the two versions.

6th Circuit decision in TM case involving GM emblems on replacement grilles for cars

You know how cars' grilles have the manufacturers' trademark designs on them? Well, in General Motors Corp. v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., No. 05-1712 (June 30, 2006), GM sued a manufacturer of replacement grilles over that issue. The replacement maker didn't actually put the emblem itself on it. It put a piece of plastic in the outline of the emblem, onto which the official emblem (which could be separately purchased from GM) could be affixed. The court called this plastic outline a "placeholder."

The district court granted summary judgment for the replacement maker on likelihood of confusion. The 6th Circuit agreed as to point-of-sale purchaser. They knew they were getting a non-GM replacement grille. But the 6th Circuit said that folks downstream in the river of commerce might be confused, and any shoddiness could be incorrectly attributed to GM. (There was also an issue of fact as to whether the placeholder was visible to downstream commerce waders.)

This is all pretty straightforward. But the silent "elephant in the room," in my mind, was aesthetic functionality. The Court noted in passing that, after GM filed suit, the defendant removed the placeholders in the shapes of the GM trademarks, and the defendant's sales of replacement grilles immediately went down. Turns out that buyers of replacement grilles actually DESIRE to have grilles with the emblems on them.

So why didn't the 6th Circuit "grille" the parties on this issue? It seems like a textbook example of aesthetic functionality. Recall that the Supreme Court in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Corp., 514 U.S. 559 (1995) , said that "if a design's aesthetic value lies in its ability to confe[r] a significant benefit that cannot practically be duplicated by the use of alternative designs, then the design is functional. The ultimate test of aesthetic functionality . . . is whether the recognition of trademark rights would significantly hinder competition."

Who knows -- maybe the defense wasn't raised. In any event, enjoy.

Plaintiff Gets Injunction Despite Sloppy Trademark Practices

On January 13, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting a defendant's further use of the plaintiff's TUMBLEBUS mark for a preschool gym on wheels. The plaintiff really dodged a bullet, however, that was aimed at the sloppy way she let her customers use her trademark.

In Tumblebus, Inc. v. Cranmer, the plaintiff uses the TUMBLEBUS mark both for sales of reoutfitted school buses and for the operation of several buses in the Louisville area. The buses the plaintiff sold to 3rd parties not only looked like the plaintiff's buses, but she also (1) allowed the buyers to use the TUMBLEBUS mark, (2) gave them training lessons in how to pitch the services, and (3) further entered into informal oral agreements about where these buyers could operate. In other words, the plaintiff's business looked a lot like a haphazard and informal form of franchising . . . but without the oversight and quality control.

This informality resulted in a legal dispute when one of the plaintiff's purchasers began operating in the Louisville area, which the plaintiff considered HER territory. The purchaser later sold to someone else, who continued to operate in Louisville.

Suing the purchaser of the used bus, the plaintiff was still able to win a preliminary injunction and get it affirmed by the 6th Circuit. The courts found that the defendant had failed to create a factual record sufficient to find the mark was, or had become, generic. The court also rejected the argument that the mark was descriptive because it found "preschool gym on wheels" more appropriate as a description and thought that TUMBLEBUS required a bit of imagination.

Finally, the courts also rejected an abandonment-through-naked-licensing argument because the one geographic are where that argument really didn't apply was Louisville -- where the plaintiff herself was the exclusive operator.

The lesson here . . . . well, maybe there is no lesson here, since the plaintiff seems to have gotten away with some pretty loosey-goosey business practices. Next time, however, TUMBLEBUS may not be so lucky.