Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Last week, a group calling themselves The Yes Men apparently perpetrated an elaborate hoax to usurp the corporate persona of the United States Chamber of Commerce, to the point of publishing a fake website and holding a press conference at the National Press Club, posing as the Chamber itself.   (Image of genuine website here.)

As reported at Betanews (and elsewhere), representatives of the real U.S. Chamber of Commerce became aware of the hoax in time to actually interrupt the faux press conference, under the auspicies of which the pranksters were announcing an about-face in the Chamber's previously-stated positions on climate policy.  As of this writing, the Betanews article has a six minute video of the press conference as it is interrupted by a genuine representative of the Chamber.  It is interesting to see how close the hoax came to actually duping real members of the press.  (Of those in attendance, apparently four actual reporters were naive to the hoax, and they reported for the Washington Post, Reuters, and Greenwire.  Some of those attending were allegedly plants.)

On Monday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued The Yes Men for a host of trademark-related torts, including trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, false advertising, and cyberpiracy.  (PDF of complaint here.)  They even worked in an allegation of counterfeiting.  (Had I drafted the complaint, I would have used the word "counterfeit" as often as possible.)  While I reserve judgment as facts develop, the information publicly available now suggests that the Chamber has a strong case.  The Yes Men seem to be leaning towards some sort of a free speech defense.  The complaint suggests that The Yes Men perpetrated the hoax in an effort to publicize their new movie.  Whether this is the case, or whether this was an actual effort to deceive people, I don't see much traction for a free speech defense, which requires at a minimum that the speech in question not be misleading.  This should be a fun case to watch!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Luxo AS, a Norwegian light manufacturer and distributor, has sued Disney and Pixar et. al. asserting various trademark-related claims arising from Disney's and Pixar's use of the LUXO trademark.  In an always interesting case of trademark law/branding meets fair use, Luxo has alleged that Disney/Pixar's use of "Luxo Jr." to identify the "hopping lamp," which has been the corporate mascot of Pixar since 1986, has crossed into the realm of forbidden behavior.

Although Pixar has been using the mascot since 1986, according to the complaint, it was only recently that infringing goods or services were being sold under the allegedly infringing mark.  Specifically, Disney/Pixar is now selling a limited edition DVD copy of Up packaged with a working "Luxo Jr." collectible desk lamp.   Additionally, they are using Luxo Jr. to draw in visitors at Disney's Hollywood Studios.

This case raises some interesting trademark related questions: (1) Has Luxo relinquished some of its rights by not previously attempting to stop Pixar's use of the "hopping lamp?"  (2) Why didn't Luxo take action earlier? (3) Absent Disney/Pixar's expansion of its use to selling lamps, would Luxo have had a viable infringement case?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Luxo didn't really have a problem with Disney/Pixar's use until it got a little too real with the lamp sales.  Arguably, the animations enhanced the popularity of Luxo's products and lead to increased lamp sales.  Luxo apparently didn't have a problem until Disney/Pixar tried to monetize some of that popularity itself by packaging a lamp with a DVD.

Moreover, the viability of an infringement claim would have likely required an examination of the often cited, yet often elusive "fair use" analysis.    As demonstrated by the Spa'am muppet case, infringement isn't clear cut when someone is using your mark to say something besides "buy my goods." 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I, like most women, want a present in a little blue box from Tiffany & Company (a/k/a Tiffany & Co.) This is not just because the company bears my name (I only wish I were an owner of the company), but because Tiffany & Co.’s exquisite jewelry is associated with the fabulous blue box.  Tiffany & Co. has been around for over 170 years. The mystique of Tiffany & Co. was enhanced by the movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” starring the beloved Audrey Hepburn. To protect this long-established brand and trademark that epitomizes luxury and attentive customer service, Tiffany & Co. took to the courts to obtain protection from Internet sales of counterfeits.  

eBay has become a hotbed for counterfeit sales of many high-end products. To assess the impact of this practice, Tiffany & Co. embarked on two buying programs where it bought products that had been represented to be authentic Tiffany & Co. merchandise on eBay. The overwhelming majority of these purchases, as much as seventy-five percent, were fakes. 

To combat this trademark infringement and dilution, Tiffany & Co. sued eBay in 2004 alleging that eBay had facilitated and allowed these fake or counterfeit items to be sold on its website (bringing six causes of action, including various trademark infringement, dilution and false advertising claims under the Lanham Act). Last month, a New York District Court found that Tiffany & Co.—not eBay—was responsible for protecting its brand and trademark on the auction site. In other words, eBay is not responsible for keeping its users from selling fake jewelry with the Tiffany & Co. name. eBay is only required to take appropriate action when it receives notice of the infringement, presumably from Tiffany & Co. Not surprisingly, Tiffany & Co. has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

Does this decision ignore an important tenet of the Lanham Act—that it is supposed to protect consumers and trademark owners? Should eBay and other sites such as Amazon.com have independent obligations not to contribute to trademark infringement (i.e., policing their websites)? 

Several other high-end companies have sued eBay in Europe and have fared much better than Tiffany & Co. did in the United States.   A French judge ordered eBay to pay 40 million euros (in light of the current low value of the United States dollar, this would translate to $63.2 million) to LVMH Moёt Hennessy Louis Vuitton over charges of selling fakes. Similarly, the German courts held that eBay must employ preventative measures against the sale of fake Rolex watches.  Unless the Second Circuit overturns the New York District Court’s decision, consumers and trademark owners will receive more protection in Europe than in the United States. Should American courts be more friendly to trademark owners?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

French customs agents seized 10 tons of counterfeit chocolate bonbons. According to the French customs office, the chocolates were low-quality copycats of the Italian-made Ferrero Rochers. Popular in the U.S. as well as Europe, Ferrero Rochers candies are known for nestling in elegant, individual gold foil wrappers and then inside jewel-shaped clear boxes.

The French seizure of the chocolates underscores the importance of federal trademark registration for U.S. businesses. Obtaining a federal trademark registration enables business owners to work with U.S. Customs to stop the importation of counterfeit goods into the United States and, in many cases, to have the goods destroyed. (Somewhat sadly, this is just what the French customs office did to the 10 tons of chocolate!)

Once upon a time, counterfeiters focused on producing fake luxury goods, such as perfumes and handbags. The French customs office, however, stated that the recent trend shows counterfeiters moving into more pedestrian consumer goods, such as food, medicine and car parts. As a result, businesses both large and small may be targets for counterfeiters from abroad. While obtaining a federal trademark registration won’t necessarily prevent counterfeiters from trying to pass their goods off under a trademark registrant's mark, it may be the best protection in preventing counterfeiters from getting away with their schemes and in deterring them from future attempts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link