Letter from AmeriKat I: Good Day Sunshine (TMs and ©)

The AmeriKat has been watching the English public embrace the change of the season this week. On Friday she slinked outside for her midday patrol and perched on a bench in Gray's Inn, with the new Vogue in paw. (picture, left - the AmeriKat taking a much needed lunchtime Kat nap) Like spring flowers, once the temperature rises above a certain level the English bloom onto any stretch of grass available to them. A sea of students, solicitors, lawyers and miscellaneous office workers were scattered about in the sections of Gray's Inn grass that was unspoilt by any appearance of shade. Once modest workwear suits, worn by males and females alike, were stripped of any sweaters, cufflinks and buttons to expose as much square footage of skin as possible, laughter was echoing off the Inn's buildings, people were chatting with their neighbors, and a general feeling of calm settled throughout. The AmeriKat even spied some IP barristers from 11 South Square joining in on the emergence of spring. There is something about warmer weather in England that makes the general public a little less guarded than normal, in both physical appearance and mentality, which can only ever be welcome.

Louboutin sees red with Yves Saint Laurent

Someone who has seemed to let their guard down, in least where trade mark infringement claims are concerned, is Yves Saint Laurent who last Thursday was sued in Manhattan federal court by the one and only Christian Louboutin. Louboutin is famous for his footwear recognizable by the casual observer by its trade mark red sole. The story goes that one of Louboutin's customers was wearing an amazing red nail polish on her nails which Louboutin adored. She had the coveted nail color in her bag, took it out and Louboutin painted his first sole with the red nail polish. The violent red-lacquered sole would later become his signature maker's mark and would be granted a US trade mark in 2008 (picture, right - Louboutin's famous heel).

Louboutin is now alleging that since January Yves Saint Laurent America, a subsidiary of the Gucci Group, is selling their shoes with the same red sole in store throughout Manhattan. Louboutin's complaint argues that Yves Saint Laurent's use of the red sole is "likely to cause and is causing confusion, mistake and deception among the relevant purchasing public." Louboutin is claiming for $1 million in damages and an injunction to stop Yves Saint Laurent (picture, left) from manufacturing the shoes. Interestingly, Louboutin apprenticed with Yves Saint Laurent in the late 1980s before setting up his own brand.

The AmeriKat is curious, as any Kat should be, to know what evidence of actual confusion (as stated by the complaint to be occurring) Louboutin has. Unlike in the UK, under section 1114 of the Lanham Act US trade mark owners have to prove that the defendant's use of their mark confused consumers. In the Second Circuit, which includes New York, the factors for the test for confusion is that as laid down in the Polaroid Corp v Polarad Elecs. Corp (1961) case. The AmeriKat sets out these factors below with some comments in tytoc collie's signature comment red:

1. The strength of the mark, i.e. the red soles - It is somewhat undeniable that Louboutin's red soles have indeed become well-recognized as a trade mark for his shoes in the market.
2. The degree of similarity between the two marks - Identical - in so far as they are both red outersoles
3. The proximity of the products and services - Identical - they are both shoes, being sold in the same stores, probably right next to or near each other
4. The likelihood that the senior user will "bridge the gap" into the junior user's product service line - if there even is a 'gap' it is very likely because they are competitors
5. Evidence of actual confusion between the marks - Always hard to come by, but perhaps Louboutin has some faithful customers who will be able to attest to some initial interest confusion?
6. Whether the Yves Saint Laurent adopted the mark in good faith
7. The quality of the Yves Saint Laurent's products - the AmeriKat would love to see Louboutin allege that YSL's products are of a lesser quality, but the fact that they are not and are side-by-side competitors actually makes it more difficult for YSL to squirm out of this one because there is more chance of there being actual, likely or initial-interest confusion.
8. The sophistication of the parties customers -If someone is in the market for $400-$4,000 shoes, one would think you would pay particular attention in knowing what shoe and from whom you were buying, however again, initial interest confusion may be the savior in this confusion battle.

Confusion, as any trade mark lawyer knows in the US and the UK, is notoriously difficult to prove. However, in the US and now thanks to Arnold J in the UK, initial interest confusion is probably the saving grace for Louboutin. Given that the price points of parties' products are so high and the sophistication of the intended consumers is so developed, any confusion present regarding the origin of the shoes on behalf of the consumer is likely to be remedied prior to purchase. What do readers think? Is this an easy fight for Louboutin or does Yves Saint Laurent have it in the (Neiman Marcus) bag?

Need for Congress to address issues with Google Books lawsuit, Pallante says

The AmeriKat has been quiet about the Google Books Settlement, which some may find unusual considering how much she followed and wrote about the litigation (see previous reports here). In fact she even predicted when District Judge Denny Chin (picture, left) was going to issue his damning judgment (just ask @garethdickson). There is little she wishes to say right now about Judge Chin's judgment other than, in her opinion, it was the correct determination given that the revised settlement seemed even worse than the first and again did not adequately address the issue of orphan works, and Google could have saved itself a lot of bother had it been an "opt-in" class than an "opt-out" (albeit probably not as profitable). However, the issue spotlighted how important the issue of digitization of works is in copyright, be it literary or artistic.

Maria Pallante (picture, right), acting Register of Copyrights, feels the same. Last week she told an event hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce that lawmakers need to address the issue of whether the digitization of literary works should be a benefit for the public or become a profit-making endeavour. As reported by the Dow Jones Newswire, Pallante stated that

"The first issue is really, is mass digitization a national goal that Congress feels legislation is warranted for, and if so, for what beneficiaries."

She also stated that

"It isn't that universal libraries aren't important, but there's a difference between universal libraries and universal bookstores."

With orphan works are back where we started, says the AmeriKat, why can't the US government just once and for all pass a bill like the Shawn Bentley Bill? It would allow for digitization of orphan works, but if and when the owner came forward a reasonable royalty would be payable under statute provided the user undertook a reasonable search. Does it need to be more complicated than this? Of course, the problem encountered is that once that copy is digitized the person who digitized it can arguably exclude other digitized copies of the same book being made - thus some of the arguments against Google in the Google Books case. As long as it is clear that the mere digitization of a literary or artistic orphan work does not mean that the digitizer can exclude others from making their own digitized versions of the work, then such problems should not be encountered. But then again, how can this be done but by legislation?

More in Part II.

Letter from AmeriKat: James Bond's gun, pre-1972 recordings, ITC patent fun, and Walgreens' "Flying W"

For the past couple of week's the AmeriKat has been balancing a pretty hefty schedule of deadlines and late nights. Her early morning starts and late night returns were beginning to grate on her nerves; the processional commute was feeling more and more like a chore than an opportunity to mindlessly follow the stream of commuters. So twice last week, while on her way to work, she stopped her blaring iPod, opened her eyes and scanned the inhabitants of her carriage. Besides the usual set of businesspersons flicking automatically through the pages of the Metro and the tourists straining their eyes at the Tube maps, she spied two distinctive objects out of the usual commuter selection: a spider and a ladybug. The spider was making a webfrom the top of one pole to the other and then casually swinging from its silk between stops. The ladybug was making its way up the arm of a large, burly looking man while he delicately watched its progress. From the otherwise indistinct, one can always find distinctiveness. (picture, left - the AmeriKat playing with the said ladybug)

Bond's gun a hit at the USPTO: Something else that has been held to be distinctive last week, this time by the USPTO, was James Bond's Walther PPKhandgun. The makers of the spy's classic weapon had previously attempted to register the gun as a trade mark, but the USPTO had concerns as to whether the gun had, in the maker's mind, a "definite aura" and "mystique". To convince the USPTO examiners otherwise, the makers commissioned a blind survey of individuals over 18 years old who own or plan to own a handgun. The results of the survey showed that about 54% of those surveyed were able to identify the PPK gun, many of whom also mentionedJames Bond as the reason for their identification. So with this convincing data before the examiner this time, the USPTO held that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and that

"it stands to reason that a party would only attempt to replicate another party's trade dress or product configuration, under license or not, if that trade dress or product configuration is perceived by the consumers as distinctive."

Although not uncommon by any means, the provision and weight of survey evidence afforded by the USPTOin this case may result in future applications for shape marks, or indeed any application that argues acquired distinctiveness, necessarily having such survey evidence in support. For more information see this report from The Hollywood Reporter.

Copyright Office to investigate pre-1972 sound recordings: Where were you in 1971? If you are the AmeriKat's age you weren't even an idea yet, but for those who remember 1971 Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" was topping the charts, Jim Morrison was found dead in a Paris bathtub, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the Pentagon Papers could be published. And if you were a sound recording in the US at this time, the federal government didn't even recognize you as a work. However, this may be changing with the US Copyright's announcement last week that it will be investigating the issue of pre-1972 sound recordings.

Before launching into this story, the AmeriKat must give readers a short lesson into this area of US copyright. In 1909, the US Congress held that the US Constitution did not allow copyright to cover sound recordings because sound recordings were not "writings". Therefore, the US Government (i.e., federal government) did not legislate on sound recordings. This left individual US states to legislate this area for themselves which left a patchwork quilt of the length and strength of protection for pre-1972 sound recordings. In 1976, when copyright law was next changed, the US government then legislated for the inclusion of sound recordings, but of course this legislation was not retrospective so therefore pre-1972 recordings were governed by the old system. Obviously, the uncertainty of the protection for these recordings in terms of scope and when the works will enter the public domain is a problem increasingly encountered today.

Recently the US Congress has directed the US Copyright Office to conduct a study to investigate whether it may now be a good idea to bring pre-1972 recordings under federal jurisdiction. The areas of investigation the study is to address include the effect of public access to the recordings and the economic impact such federal jurisdiction would have on the rights-holders of these recordings. The Copyright Office has published a notice of inquiry requesting written comments from all interested parties and has requested input on the effect that such federal protection would have upon these sound recordings. The AmeriKat, in her rose-tinted view, can only think that consistency and predictability of copyright can only be a good thing - although she is sure that rights holders of pre-1972 works may vehemently disagree. Initial comments must be submitted by 20 December 2010, with reply comments due 18 January 2011. For further information on the protection of pre-1972 sound recordings see this paper prepared by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at the Washington College of Law.

ITC side with Nokia in Apple patent spat - The US International Trade Commission (ITC) staff stated last week in a pre-trial memo that Nokiashould not be found liable for infringing Apple's patents. The statement came at the start of the ITC trial on the issue. Apple had requested the ITC to block imports of Nokia phones using the Symbian operating system as they were allegedly infringing four of Apple's patents. Nokia contends that some of Apple's patent claims are invalid, and the remaining claims were not infringed. ITC staff, who act as an impartial third party in ITC cases on behalf of the US public, declared that the evidence "will not establish a violation", but that if the judge was minded to find for infringement then it followed that the Nokia phones should be blocked. Judge Charles Bullock is expected to issue his findings in February 2011. Any decision by Judge Bullock will be subject to review by the six-member commission. For more info on the Apple/Nokia battle see previousAmeriKat reports here and here. For more information see this report in Bloomberg and Ars Technica.

Walgreens sues Wegmans: In the UK, if you require a medicine or shampoo you go to Boots. In the US you go to Walgreens. Walgreens, unlike Boots, is much larger, equipped with drive-up windows to pick up and drop off prescriptions during your busy day, and has aisles devoted to non-pharmaceutical products, such as school supplies, greeting cards and junk food. It is safe to say that there is probably very few Americans who have not shopped at Walgreens at some point. Now Walgreens is suing the New York-based supermarket chain Wegmans, alleging that Wegman's logo is too similar to Walgreens'. Walgreen's filed their trade mark infringement complaint against Wegman's two weeks ago in Virginia. Walgreen alleges that its "flying W" deserves protection due to its use from 1951. Wegmans contend, however, that the "W" it started using in 2008 was a revival of a logo that it had used in the 1930s. A spokesperson for Wegman's said that there was no confusion between the two logos. According to a reportSouthern Tier of New York, people that the news channel interviewed were apparently more confused about why the lawsuit was filed than about the "W"s alleged similarity at all.

Pratt & Whitney to stop Rolls-Royce?: Pratt & Witney, manufacturers of jet engines, filed an US International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint last week to stop shipments of Rolls-Royce engines to Boeing for the production of the 787 Dreamliner (picture, right). For the past few months the two companies have been engrossed in disputes when in August Rolls-Royce filed a lawsuit alleging that the fan stages on some of Pratt's products infringed Rolls-Royce's swept fan blade. Pratt then issued a separate complaint in September alleging that Rolls-Royce had mislead the USPTO in order to be granted the patent for the fan blade. Next stop for Pratt this past week was filing a complaint for patent infringement against Rolls-Royce at the US ITC as well in the UK's High Court for infringement of their Trent 1000 and 900 engines. Trent 1000 and 900 engines are used in the Boeing 787 and Airbus's A380 respectively. All in all, not a good week for Rolls-Royce following last week's scare on a Quanta's flight to Sydney. The AmeriKat has not seen the complaint from Pratt & Whitney, but given the allegations that a design flaw is to blame for the scare alleged to have been caused by the Rolls-Royce engine on the Quanta's flight, is it a good move to now allege that that the Rolls-Royce engine infringes their engines? For more information click here.