Trademark

Social Media Posts Flouting TRO Warrant Injunction and Imposition of Conditions on Future Posts

In connection with finding defendant in contempt of the TRO prohibiting him from recruiting plaintiff's representatives, the court enjoined defendant from using particular hashtags on social media postings. "⁠[T]he record establishes that [defendant] has made public posts on Facebook inviting anyone that could read the public post (including current [plaintiff] Representatives) to join his new company. In the Facebook post, [defendant] referred to his current recruitment effort as Team '#TRO.' [A] current [plaintiff] Representative . . . posted a photograph on Facebook of him and [defendant] having dinner with the hashtag '#TeamTRO.' [Defendant] later posted the same photo to Facebook [...]

2018-08-28T11:41:03+00:00August 28th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|

Rule 50(a) Motion on Likelihood of Confusion Does Not Preserve Rule 50(b) Motion on False Designation of Origin

The court denied plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and rejected plaintiff's contention that plaintiff's motion for directed verdict as to likelihood of confusion preserved plaintiff's Rule 50(b) motion as to false designation of origin and willfulness. "⁠[T]hough the underlying test for all three causes of action may be identical and as a result trademark infringement and false designation of origin require 'substantially the same proof,' the statutes still contain several dissimilarities. . . . By analyzing the two statutes side-by-side, the Court is able to pinpoint several dissimilarities. For instance, pursuant to § 1125(a)(1)’s phrasing, it [...]

2018-08-27T11:18:04+00:00August 27th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|

Two Decades of Promotion, Millions in Advertising, and Numerous References in Fashion Publications Insufficient to Allege Famous Trade Dress

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's trade dress dilution claim because plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that its mark was famous. "⁠[Plaintiff] alleges that it has promoted the Trade Dress 'for nearly two decades,' and that 'no other significant manufacturer of clothing or accessories uses designs that are the same as, or confusingly similar to, the [plaintiff's] Trade Dress without [plaintiff's] consent.' Merchandise with the Trade Dress 'is sold in high-end department stores such as Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue, [plaintiff's] stores, online . . . and in other authorized retail establishments.' '⁠[Plaintiff] has expended millions of dollars [...]

2018-08-24T11:32:02+00:00August 24th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|