Author Archives: Joe Carnicella

“Johnny Football”

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

On March 20, 2014, the USPTO rejected an application for the “Johnny Football” trademark on the grounds that the applied-for-mark consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual whose written consent to register the mark is not of record.  On November 1, 2012, Kenneth R. Reynolds Family Investments, an investment firm based in College Station, Texas, filed for the trademark “Johnny Football” as Johnny Manziel began his ascent to fame as Texas A&M’s quarterback.  Johnny Manziel, through his organization JMAN2 Enterprises, filed for the same trademark three months later.   The investment firm now has six months to request that the USPTO reconsider its decision or to file an appeal.  The application filed by Manziel’s organization has been stayed pending the outcome of the investment firm’s application.

What Is a Trademark?

PSMN What Is...? SeriesBy: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

As part of our “What is . . . ?” series, it’s time to find out just what is a trademark / service mark.

A trademark / service mark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the goods or services from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of goods or services, even if that source is unknown.  There are five categories of marks: fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive and generic.  A fanciful mark comprises a term that has been invented for the sole purpose of functioning as a trademark or service mark.  These words are either unknown in the language or are completely out of common usage.  Examples of fanciful marks include PEPSI and KODAK.  An arbitrary mark comprises words that are common in language but, when used to identify particular goods or services, do not suggest or describe a significant ingredient, quality or characteristic of the goods or services.  An example of an arbitrary mark is APPLE for computers.  A suggestive mark comprises words that, when applied to the goods or services at issue, require imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of those goods or services.  A descriptive mark comprises words that merely describe an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods or services.  Finally, a generic mark comprises words that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services.

Now that you have an understanding of what is a trademark / service mark, the next step is to determine whether you can and should obtain a mark.  An important issue to determine is whether a mark is registrable.  One of the most common grounds for refusal of a registration is that the potential mark causes a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark.  In particular, a likelihood of confusion exists when the marks are similar and the goods or services relate in a way that such consumers would mistakenly believe they come from the same source.  Other grounds for refusal exist as well.  The other important issue to determine is whether the mark is enforceable based on the strength of the mark.  The strongest mark, and thus, the easiest to enforce, is a fanciful mark, and next in line would be an arbitrary mark followed by a suggestive mark.

If you are interested in obtaining a trademark / service mark, you should consult a trademark attorney to advise and to assist you with the federal registration process.       Continue reading

Supreme Court Holds That Patentee Bears Burden of Persuasion on Infringement When Licensee Seeks a Declaratory Judgment

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

We posted about this case in May 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court decided this matter.

First, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction.  Because federal courts determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction often look to the “character” of the declaratory judgment defendant’s “threatened action,” which in this case, the threatened hypothetical action would constitute the licensor terminating a license and bringing suit for infringement under federal patent laws, the declaratory judgment action would arise under federal patent laws.

Second, the Supreme Court held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of infringement.  The Supreme Court based this ruling on three settled legal propositions: (1) a patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural leaving substantive rights unchanged; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim.

By way of background, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. to hear argument on whether, in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee, the licensee has the burden to prove that its products do not infringe the patent, or whether the patentee must prove infringement.  Medtronic Inc. (licensee) licensed a patent from Mirowski Family Ventures LLC (patentee / licensor) relating to a device used to stop imminent heart failure.  Medtronic subsequently created new products and then filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that its new products do not infringe the patent.  The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that Medtronic bears the burden of proving that its products do not infringe Mirowski’s patent.  Medtronic argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling, which Medtronic argued is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007).  In MedImmune, the Supreme Court ruled that a patent licensee that believes that its products do not infringe the patent is “not required . . . to break or terminate its . . . license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is . . . not infringed.”  According to Medtronic, the Federal Circuit’s opinion undercut the MedImmune decision because it caused a licensee to take on the significant burden and cost of a presumption that its products infringe.  In turn, Mirowski argued that this case is distinguishable from MedImmune because the licensing agreement at issue specifically required Medtronic to file a declaratory judgment action if a dispute arose.  Mirowski submitted that the Federal Circuit correctly decided that, based specifically on the contract terms between the parties, Medtronic should bear the burden of proving that it should be let out of the contract for the new products.

Google Books Program Considered Fair Use

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

On November 14, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Google’s Books Program constituted fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107.

Since 2004, Google has scanned more than twenty million books as part of its two digital book programs, the “Partner Program” and the “Library Project” (collectively referred to as “Google Books”).  Almost 93% of the books scanned are non-fiction while the remaining 7% are fiction.  The Partner Program, which is designed to help publishers sell books and to help books become discovered, consists of Google hosting and displaying material provided by book publishers or other rights holders with the permission of the rights holders.  The Library Project involves the digital scanning of books in the collections of numerous libraries without the permission from the copyright holders.  Pursuant to an agreement with Google, participating libraries can download a digital copy of each book scanned from their collections.  Google also creates more than one copy of each book it scans and maintains digital copies on its servers and back-up tapes.

Plaintiffs, the legal or beneficial owners of various books, commenced this action alleging that Google committed copyright infringement by scanning copyrighted books and making them available for search without permission of the copyright holders.  Google’s primary defense was fair use.  According to Section 107 of the Copyright Act, the fair use of a copyright work , . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.  In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.  The court analyzed each of these factors as general guidance to determine whether Google infringed on the rights of the copyright holders.

First, with respect to the purpose and character of use, a key consideration is whether the use of the copyrighted work is “transformative,” that is, whether the new work merely supersedes or supplants the original creation or whether it instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.  The court determined that Google’s use of the copyrighted works was highly transformative.  Google Books digitizes books and transforms expressive text into a comprehensive word index that helps readers, scholars, researchers and others find books.  Google Books helps librarians and cite-checkers to identify and find books.  The court found that the use of book text to facilitate search through the display of snippets was transformative.  The court also found Google Books to be transformative in that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of research.  Moreover, the court concluded that Google Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books.  Finally, even though Google is a for-profit company and Google Books is a commercial enterprise, and despite the fact that a commercial use tends to weigh against a finding of fair use, the court found fair use because Google does not engage in direct commercialization of copyrighted works, i.e. Google does not sell the scans it has made of the books, does not sell the snippets that it displays, and does not run ads on the pages that contain snippets.

With respect to the second factor, the court considered certain facts (e.g. that the majority of the books are non-fiction and that the books at issue are published and available to the public), and concluded that such considerations favor a finding of fair use.

With respect to the third factor, the court noted that Google scans the full text of books and it copies verbatim expression.  The court noted that, as one of the keys to Google Books is its offering of full-text search of books, full-work reproduction is critical to the functioning of Google Books.  Even though Google limits the amount of text it displays in response to a search, the court concluded that the third factor weighed slightly against a finding of fair use.

Finally, with respect to the fourth factor, the plaintiffs argued that Google Books would negatively impact the market for books and that Google’s scans would serve as a “market replacement” for books.  The court disagreed with this argument because Google does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books.  The plaintiffs also argued that users could put in multiple searches, varying slightly the search terms, to access an entire book.  Again, the court disagreed and found it highly unlikely that someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book.  According to the court, not only is that not possible as certain pages and snippets are blacklisted, the individual would have to have a copy of the book in his possession already to be able to piece the different snippets together in coherent fashion.  To the contrary, the court found that Google Books would only enhance the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders and determined that Google Books provides a way for authors’ works to become noticed, much like traditional in-store book displays.

The court weighed the competing factors and found Google’s use to be a fair use.  According to the court, Google Books provides significant public benefits by advancing the progress of the arts and sciences, by maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and by not adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders.  Also, Google provides the libraries with the technological means to make digital copies of books that they already own, wherein the libraries then use the digital copies in transformative ways by creating their own full-text searchable indices of books, maintaining copies for purposes of preservation, and making copies available to print-disabled individuals.

Western District Analyzes Trademark Issues: Use in Commerce; Abandonment; and Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

By: Joe Carnicella, an intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

On September 13, 2013, Judge Cercone of the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion in Taza Systems, LLC v. Taza 21 Co., LLC, et al., No. 2:11-cv-073, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130974 (W.D. Pa. September 13, 2013), covering various fundamental trademark topics.

Relevant Facts

Taza Systems is the owner of three service mark registrations on the Principal Register of the USPTO: (1) the word mark TAZA; (2) the word mark TAZA A LEBANESE GRILL; and (3) the design mark TAZA A LEBANESE GRILL.  These marks cover restaurant and bar services in International Class 43.  Taza Systems operates two restaurants in Woodmere, Ohio and Cleveland, Ohio.  In July 2008, Taza 21 opened a restaurant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, under the names TAZA21, TAZA21 FRESH, and TAZA21 FRESH SHAWARMA CAFE.

Use in Commerce

Taza 21 asserted that Taza Systems’ registered marks were invalid and subject to cancellation because Taza Systems did not provide services in interstate commerce as required to justify registration under the Lanham Act.

According to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., a mark is used “in commerce” on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce.  Commerce is defined to mean “all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.”  Because Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause extends even to purely intrastate activity if that activity substantially affects interstate commerce, the Lanham Act’s authority includes the same.  The court discussed the term “in commerce” as it applies to restaurants located in a single state.  Some factors that have been deemed to satisfy the interstate commerce requirement include location near interstate highways, servicing customers from other states, advertisements in out-of-state publications and purchasing ingredients from out-of-state vendors.

The court determined that Taza 21 would have the burden of proving at trial that Taza Systems did not use the registered service marks “in commerce”, and in doing so, Taza 21 would have to produce evidence to contradict and overcome the rebuttable presumption of validity and ownership of the marks afforded to Taza Systems because it holds registration certificates for all three service marks.  The court concluded that Taza 21 failed to adduce sufficient evidence that could establish at trial that the service marks are not used in commerce.

Abandonment

Taza 21 asserted that Taza Systems’ marks were invalid and subject to cancellation because Taza Systems failed to police third-party uses of confusingly similar marks.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, if a trademark or service mark becomes generic, or otherwise loses its significance as an indicator of source due to the conduct of the owner, it can be deemed legally abandoned.  A mark can also be deemed legally abandoned if the owner discontinues use, with an intent not to resume it.  However, a party arguing for abandonment has a high burden of proof because abandonment, being in the nature of a forfeiture, must be strictly proved.  A “failure to police” a mark is one type of owner conduct that is commonly assumed to result in abandonment.  However, in order to prove this type of abandonment, the challenger must establish that the presence of third-party users in the marketplace resulted in what is described as a “loss of trade significance,” which is another way of saying that a mark is no longer distinctive because it fails to identify and distinguish the services of one person from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services.  As a reminder, the distinctiveness of a mark is evaluated by four categories: (1) arbitrary or fanciful; (2) suggestive; (3) descriptive; and (4) generic.  The first two categories are inherently distinctive and are afforded protection under the Lanham Act automatically; the third type of mark must acquire distinctiveness as an identifier of the source of goods or services before it can be eligible for protection; the fourth category of marks is never protected as a mark.

The court analyzed Taza 21’s evidence, which consisted of only a list compiled by counsel of 51 businesses that included TAZA in their name and an excerpt from a Thomson CompuMark Trademark Research Report issued to Taza Systems’ attorney seven years prior, and determined that such evidence did nothing to establish that Taza Systems’ marks lost their significance as an indicator of the source of its restaurant and bar services.  According to the court, the evidence did nothing more than establish that, at one point in time, various businesses across the United States may have used the word TAZA in their names and that those businesses ranged from coffee shops and restaurants to blown glass manufacturers and residential building contractors.  Moreover, the court applied the Dawn Donut Rule (see Dawn Donut Comp. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959)) and concluded that, because these third parties use their marks in geographically “separate trading areas” and there was no evidence that Taza Systems had imminent plans to expand into the third-party user’s territory, no public confusion was likely.  The court ruled that Taza 21 failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that the moniker TAZA had become generically descriptive of restaurant services as a result of Taza Systems’ failure to police the market.

Descriptiveness – Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

Taza 21 asserted that Taza Systems’ marks were invalid and subject to cancellation because the marks were merely descriptive upon application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents.

Registration of a mark on the Principal Register constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of a trademark and of the owner’s exclusive right to use it in commerce.  However, if a challenger comes forward with evidence to establish that the mark was erroneously registered, the registration can be cancelled or otherwise invalidated.  Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, foreign words from common languages are translated into English to determine whether they are generic or descriptive.  However, this doctrine applies only if the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the mark into English.  When it it unlikely that an American buyer would translate the foreign mark, either because of unfamiliarity with the foreign word or association of the word with its foreign language through decor, the doctrine does not apply.

During prosecution of its marks, Taza Systems disclosed that the word “taza” translates from the Lebanese dialect of Arabic to English as “fresh,” and each of the registration certificates explicitly reflects this translation.  Taza 21 submitted as evidence printouts from various on-line dictionaries reflecting that “taza” translated from Hindi to English as “fresh” and “green,” that “taze” translated from Turkish to English as “fresh” and “youthful,” and “taza” translated from Persian to English as “fresh, young, new.”

The court analyzed this limited evidence and determined that Taza 21 failed to adduce any evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to overcome the presumption of validity afforded to Taza Systems by its federal registrations and to conclude that the ordinary American purchaser would deem the mark TAZA to be descriptive of “restaurant and bar services.”  The court opined that, because the mark TAZA appeared in the context of a restaurant that serves Lebanese food, plays Lebanese music and is decorated with Lebanese decor, a reasonable juror could find that the ordinary American purchaser would not be prompted to translate the mark TAZA, thereby making the doctrine of foreign equivalents inapplicable.  Moreover, even assuming that the doctrine of foreign equivalents might apply, the court determined that Taza 21 failed to produce evidence that the doctrine would invalidate the marks.  In making this decision, the court considered certain statistics, which demonstrated that only a very low percentage of the U.S. population speaks Arabic, and concluded that the ordinary American purchaser would not stop and translate the term TAZA into English.  The court also considered the pages from the various dictionaries submitted by Taza 21 and determined that such evidence would not invoke the doctrine because there are multiple translations and varying foreign spellings and pronunciations.  Finally, assuming arguendo that Taza 21 could establish that the ordinary American purchase would stop and translate “taza,” the court held that no reasonable juror could conclude that “fresh” is a word used to describe restaurant and bar services.  Although “fresh” could be suggestive of the type of products or ingredients used at a particular restaurant, as opposed to another, suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and entitled to trademark protection.  The court held that the Taza Systems’ registrations for “fresh” do not remove an inevitably descriptive or generic word for restaurant or bar services in a foreign language from public use in the United States.

Chilling Effect? Wendy’s Sues to Protect Frosty Trademark

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

On June 21, 2013, Wendy’s filed a lawsuit against United Dairy Farmers, Inc. alleging infringement of Wendy’s well-known Frosty trademark along with infringement of its red and yellow trade dress used on its Frosty cups.  Wendy’s asserts that the Frosty trademark is famous and that sales of products identified by the Frosty trademark have exceeded tens of millions of dollars.  Also, Wendy’s asserts that its yellow and red trade dress is famous and that there is widespread consumer recognition of the trade dress as designating the source of its desserts.  Wendy’s alleges that United Dairy Farmers’ marketing of its products as “Frosties” and “Frosty Malts” is a complete knock-off of Wendy’s signature Frosty dessert.  According to a Wendy’s spokesman, Wendy’s filed this suit to protect its iconic brand and to avoid consumer confusion.

The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division, No. 2:13-cv-596.  Wendy’s is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and is seeking an injunction barring United Dairy Farmers from selling its products and requiring it to destroy its packaging.

Supreme Court to Hear Argument on Patent Licensee’s Burden of Proof

SupremeCourtImage_1

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

On May 20, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. to hear argument on whether, in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee, the licensee has the burden to prove that its products do not infringe the patent, or whether the patentee must prove infringement.

Medtronic Inc. (licensee) licensed a patent from Mirowski Family Ventures LLC (patentee / licensor) relating to a device used to stop imminent heart failure.  Medtronic subsequently created new products and then filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that its new products do not infringe the patent.  The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that Medtronic bears the burden of proving that its products do not infringe Mirowski’s patent.

Medtronic has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling, which Medtronic has argued is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007).  In MedImmune, the Supreme Court ruled that a patent licensee that believes that its products do not infringe the patent is “not required . . . to break or terminate its . . . license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is . . . not infringed.”  According to Medtronic, the Federal Circuit’s opinion undercuts the MedImmune decision because it causes a licensee to take on the significant burden and cost of a presumption that its products infringe.

In turn, Mirowski has argued that this case is distinguishable from MedImmune because the licensing agreement at issue specifically required Medtronic to file a declaratory judgment action if a dispute arose.  Mirowski believes that the Federal Circuit correctly decided that, based specifically on the contract terms between the parties, Medtronic should bear the burden of proving that it should be let out of the contract for the new products.

Patent Prosecution Law Firms Beware . . .

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

On April 15, Thomson Reuters published a very interesting article that should be read by attorneys who represent clients in preparing and filing patent applications.  The article can be found here.  The article reports that at least three cases have been filed by publishers and copyright holders of scientific, technology and medical journals (American Institute of Physics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.) against law firms for using copyrighted materials as part of the patent application process.  The law firms have been accused of “wrongly using copyrighted works to promote their business interests.”  In particular, the article reports that the plaintiffs are not complaining about copies being submitted to the USPTO, but rather, they are objecting to the fact that law firms made and kept additional copies of the copyrighted materials.  The law firms have responded by arguing that, inter alia, copies made during the course of the representation constitute fair use.  We will continue to monitor these cases.

U.S. Supreme Court Interprets the “First Sale” Doctrine

Supreme Court

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

On March 19, 2013, in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11-697, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.  Specifically, a buyer or other lawful owner of a copy (of a copyrighted work) lawfully manufactured abroad is protected under the “first sale” doctrine and such buyer may bring that copy into the United States (and sell it or give it away) without obtaining permission to do so from the copyright owner.

Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants the owner of copyright exclusive rights including the right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.  One limitation on these exclusive rights falls under Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act (commonly referred to as the “first sale” doctrine), which provides that the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.  Thus, once a copy has been lawfully sold or its ownership otherwise lawfully transferred, the buyer of that copy and subsequent owners are free to dispose of the copy as they wish.  Section 602(a)(1) further provides that importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive rights to distribute copies under Section 106.

Wiley & Sons publishes academic books and assigns rights to publish, print and sell the English language textbooks abroad to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary.  Supap Kirtsaeng, while studying in the United States, asked his friends and family to purchase copies of foreign edition English-language textbooks at Thai book shops, which sold the books at low prices, and to mail the books to him in the United States, wherein he used the books, sold them, reimbursed his family and friends and kept the profit.

In 2008, Wiley initiated a lawsuit against Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement on the grounds that Kirtsaeng’s unauthorized importation of its books and his later resale of those books amounted to an infringement of Wiley’s Section 106(3) exclusive right to distribute as well as the Section 602 related import prohibition.  Kirtsaeng defended against the claim on the ground that the books he had acquired were “lawfully made” and that he had acquired them legitimately.  His position was that the “first sale” doctrine under Section 109(a) permitted him to resell or otherwise dispose of the books without the copyright owner’s further permission.  The District Court ruled that the “first sale” defense was not available to Kirtsaeng because the doctrine does not apply to “foreign-manufactured goods.”  The Second Circuit agreed with the District Court.

The Court analyzed the language within these statutes, and in particular the phrase “lawfully made under this title.”  Wiley argued that the phrase imposes a form of geographical limitation and that the “first sale” doctrine does not apply to copies of American copyrighted works manufactured abroad.  Kirtsaeng argued that the phrase imposes a non-geographical limitation, and in particular, that the intention was for the phrase to mean “made in accordance with” or “in compliance with the Copyright Act.”  In this case, Kirtsaeng asserted that the “first sale” doctrine would apply to copyrighted works as long as their manufacture met the requirements of American copyright law, e.g. copies manufactured abroad with the permission of the copyright owner.  The Court considered the language of Section 109(a), its context and the common-law history of the “first sale” doctrine and concluded that Section 109(a) favors a non-geographical interpretation.  The U.S. Supreme Court determined that, while Section 602(a)(1) makes clear that importing a copy without permission violates the owner’s exclusive distribution right, it also refers explicitly to Section 106(3), which is by its terms is subject to various limitations including the “first sale” limitation under Section 109(a).

A complete copy of the Court’s Opinion can be found on the United States Supreme Court’s website.

Under Armour Seeking to “Protect Its House”

By: Joseph R. Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

Under Armour has filed suit against Nike alleging that Nike has infringed certain Under Armour trademarks as a result of Nike’s use of the phrase “I Will” in advertisements.  Under Armour alleges that Nike’s use of “I Will” infringes its trademark rights, dilutes a famous mark, e.g. the slogan “I will protect this house,” and constitutes unfair competition.  Under Armour alleges that Nike launched an advertising campaign on its Facebook page and YouTube video page that repeatedly use the “I Will” trademark/tagline, and as a result, consumers have already associated Nike’s use of “I Will” with Under Armour.

Under Armour filed the lawsuit on February 21, 2013, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (1:13-cv-00571).  Nike has not yet filed a response to the complaint.  We will continue to monitor this action.