DuetsBlog

Collaborations in Creativity & the Law

Golden Knights Trademark Dispute Finally Resolved

Posted in Agreements, Mixed Bag of Nuts, Trademarks, TTAB, USPTO

Another update on my long-running series of posts following the NHL’s newest hockey team, the Las Vegas Golden Knights, and their embattled trademark applications for VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS that were filed nearly two years ago.

Most recently I posted about a challenge to the trademark applications by the U.S. Army, who opposed registration of the VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS marks in connection with professional ice hockey exhibitions. The Army alleged likelihood of confusion, among other claims, based primarily on the Army’s prior use of a GOLDEN KNIGHTS mark in connection with the Army’s parachute demonstration team.

The hockey team announced last week that they had settled the dispute by executing a co-existence agreement, in which the Army agreed to withdraw the opposition proceeding and allow the hockey team to register the VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS marks, while the hockey team agreed the Army would continue using the Golden Knights name for its parachute team.

This type of settlement involving a co-existence agreement is quite common in opposition proceedings. It is also not surprising for a couple other reasons. As discussed in my last post, the Army would have had a difficult time establishing the necessary “relatedness” factor for its likelihood-of-confusion claim. Although both parties technically are offering types of “entertainment” services, it would have been difficult to show that professional ice hockey exhibitions and parachute demonstrations are sufficiently related to cause likely confusion.

Furthermore, the financial support for the Army by Bill Foley (the owner of the hockey team) may have been a factor that encouraged an amicable settlement. Foley is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and is the biggest donor to its athletic program. Due to his $15 million donation, Foley’s name is on West Point’s athletic center.

Now that the Army has withdrawn its opposition, the VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS marks will likely register in the next couple months. This was a difficult road to registration in light of the various Office Actions and other challenges discussed in previous posts. But it was well worth the effort, in light of the high value of the team’s brand, especially due to the team’s quick competitive success and business growth. The Golden Knights made it to the Stanley Cup in their first season, and the team sold more merchandise last year than any other other NHL team.

Green Straws, Dots, Aprons, and Letters?

Posted in Agreements, Articles, Branding, Famous Marks, Food, Look-For Ads, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Trademarks, TTAB, USPTO

Starbucks is moving away from green straws, actually any plastic straws, to live a little more green. So, we’re unlikely to see any straw trademark filings, despite decent look-for advertising.

While Starbucks appears to have drawn the short straw at the USPTO on its efforts to federally-register a pair of green dot marks, appeals to the TTAB are currently pending, here and here:

Let’s stay tuned to see whether Starbucks gets cooking at the USPTO by filing any service mark applications for its distinctive green colored aprons, can you say look-for advertising?

What do you think, does this GREENER APRON word-only mark filing move Starbucks closer?

Starbucks certainly seems to have a lot of brand equity wrapped up in the color green, so I’m left wondering why this coffee shop in San Francisco Int’l Airport chose its name and green letters?

Is it ironic that I’m writing and publishing this Starbucks post remotely on my lap top from here?

Starbucks, thanks for the great coffee, tasty blueberry muffin, and most importantly, the free wifi!

This is Not the Statue You’re Looking For: The Post Office’s $3.5 Million Copyright Mistake

Posted in Copyrights, Fair Use, Infringement, Law Suits

 

Earlier this month, the United States Postal Service (USPS) was ordered to pay $3.5 million in damages to a sculptor for copyright infringement.

Seeking a unique redesign for its “Forever” stamps, the USPS searched stock photos for images of the Statue of Liberty.  They found a particularly striking photo on Getty Images and paid $1,500 for a license.  Between 2010 and 2014, the USPS produced and sold 4.9 billion Forever stamps featuring the Statue of Liberty photo obtained through Getty Images.  There was only one problem—this was not the Statue of Liberty.  Instead, the photo was of the Lady Liberty replica statue displayed in front of the New York-New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas.  The differences may be subtle, but on a side-by-side comparison, the distinction becomes clear.

On close inspection, you can even see the small plaque affixed to the crown of the Las Vegas statue.  “This one’s for you, mom”–the sculptor’s dedication to his mother-in-law.

The USPS discovered the mix-up in 2011 after only a few months of production.  They stated that they still would have selected the image had they known it depicted the Las Vegas statue, and continued producing the stamps.  Robert Davidson is the sculptor of the Las Vegas replica statue.  Recognizing that the USPS was profiting from his original work of art, Davidson sued the USPS for copyright infringement.

After a two-week bench trial, the court found in favor of Davidson.  The $3.5 million damages amount was calculated as a 5% royalty on the USPS’s profits on the stamp.

 

How can someone claim copyright on a replica of a famous statue?

The short answer is: it’s not an exact replica.  As the court in this case explained, “a work of art need not be wholly original to be copyrightable.”  Rather “it need only be a new and original expression of some previous work or idea.”  The standard for obtaining any copyright protection is relatively low.  To demonstrate that Davidson’s statue is eligible for copyright protection, he need only show a “modicum of creativity.”  In a 1991 case, the Supreme Court described the level of creativity required as “extremely low” and stated that “even a slight amount will suffice.”  Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991).  In addition, to obtain protection for his sculpture, Davidson needed to show some nontrivial variation from the New York statue that distinguishes it in some meaningful way.

The court found that Davidson met this burden.  The court seemed particularly persuaded by Davidson’s testimony that he sought to give his sculpture a more “feminine” and “fresh” face, as compared with the “harsher” and “more masculine” look of the original.  Questions about the application of societal beauty standards to the Statue of Liberty aside, the court determined that the softened jaw line, rounded face, and modified eyes and lips were sufficient for copyright protection in the derivative work.

 

Since the USPS obtained rights to the image through Getty Images and paid a licensing fee, how was this an infringement?

This was my first question when I learned the USPS paid a licensing fee for the photo.  However, it turns out the photo itself was an infringing work.  According to Davidson’s complaint, the photographer took the photo and posted it for sale on Getty Images without Davidson’s permission.  Thus although USPS paid a licensing fee to the photographer, the license was still based on use of an infringing, unauthorized work.  Continued sale and distribution of the photograph, whether by the photographer or USPS, constituted additional infringement.

 

Isn’t this protected fair use?

The USPS raised the issue of fair use as a defense to the infringement.  Fair use does not have a clear-cut definition.  In determining whether an otherwise infringing use constitutes fair use, courts look to four factors: (1) The purpose and character of the use; (2) The nature of the copyrighted work; (3) The amount of the copyrighted work that was used; and (4) The effect of the use on the author’s market.  The USPS’s argument for fair use relied in part on its low profit margin on the stamps and a lack of any harm to Davidson’s ability to capitalize on the sculpture.  The court sided with Davidson.  As the court explained, although the profit margin for individual stamps was low, the USPS collected over $70 million in pure profit from the stamps.  The court also noted that the USPS never offered a public attribution or apology to Davidson.

 

Shouldn’t the sculptor have sued the photographer instead of the USPS?

It seems Davidson had options here.  Both the photographer and the USPS unlawfully used Davidson’s work.  The photographer produced and sold a derivative work (the photo) based on the original copyrighted work (the sculpture).  The USPS then reproduced and sold the same infringing photo.  Both the photographer and USPS used, and profited from, Davidson’s underlying original work.  It is likely that Davidson also could have sued Getty Images for displaying and licensing the infringing work.  It seems Davidson probably made the strategic decision to sue the U.S. government, rather than the photographer or Getty, as the potential for damages was considerably higher.

How Might A Justice Kavanaugh Impact The USPTO?

Posted in Civil Procedure, Mixed Bag of Nuts, Squirrelly Thoughts, Trademarks, TTAB, USPTO

Since last week, the internet has blown-up about what United States Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh might decide regarding issues coming before the Supreme Court if he joined the highest Court of the land. As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has been skeptical about the authority of administrative agencies. This could impact decisions rendered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

Specifically, Judge Kavanaugh has been critical of the authority of the government agencies to promulgate regulations interpreting legislation. Judge Kavanaugh would likely find it inappropriate for an agency to fill in gaps left in a statute.  Judge Kavanaugh would likely chip away or do away with the Chevron doctrine. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). This doctrine refers to a defense invoked by a government agency that allows a court to show deference to the agency’s interpretation of a law that it administers.

Several years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that issue preclusion should apply (so long as the other elements of issue preclusion are met) when the trademark usages adjudicated by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) are materially the same as those before the district court. B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Indus., _ U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015).  In other words, the decision of the TTAB can be binding on other courts. DuetsBlog has posted on this decision before:

Likelihood of Preclusion: Fallout From the Supreme Court Ruling on Likely Confusion and What Do Gripe Sites Have to Do with SCOTUS’s B&B Hardware Decision?

Justice Thomas and the late Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority in the B&B Hardware decision. In his dissent, Justice Thomas was troubled by the fact that the TTAB was not comprised of Article III judges. Instead, the judges serving on the TTAB lacked input from either the President of the United States or the Senate. The dissent believed that applying issue preclusion raised serious constitutional concerns.

Judge Kavanaugh appeared to have a similar view in connection with a decision related to an underlying decision rendered by the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”). He suggested that there was “a serious constitutional issue” with the way judges are appointed to the CRB. Judge Kavanaugh further wrote that “under the Appointments Clause, principal offices of the United States must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the CRB had acted arbitrarily.

It will be interesting to see what impact a Justice Kavanaugh (or whoever becomes the ultimate replacement for Justice Kennedy) will have on the USPTO and intellectual property issues in general.

Vacuum Wars: On-Product Comparative Ads?

Posted in Advertising, Articles, Branding, Fair Use, First Amendment, Infringement, Marketing, Technology, Trademarks

When can a brand owner lawfully use a competitor’s trademark on the brand owner’s product?

Over the years, we’ve lifted away a lot of dust on the hairy subjects of classic trademark fair use, nominative fair use, and comparative advertising, especially in the context of billboard ads.

It isn’t every day we see comparative billboard ads actually affixed to a product in question, so I can’t resist sharing this vacuum cleaner canister that captures all of these legal allergens at once:

For those unfamilar with the fierce competition between the Shark and Dyson vacuum brands, above is a cropped photo of a Shark Lift-Away canister vacuum, from my home closet.

As you can see, the label affixed to the canister portion of the vacuum actually refers to the competing Dyson brand twice. Just imagine what our friend James Mahoney might be thinking.

Why would the leading household vacuum cleaner brand — Shark — stoop to give its competitor Dyson free mentions (albeit negative) and publicity? Isn’t that kind of like punching down?

Actually, I’m not sure whether Shark had yet surpassed Dyson as market leader, when the canister left the store and entered our closet, so the above label might have been a punch up?

And, if comparative advertising induces sales, why does someone who already purchased the product need more reminders — with each use — that Dyson sucks, in more ways than one?

Turns out, the label shown above, as we now know, is fairly easily removed, so I suppose the joke is really on us, for leaving this comparative advertising on the product for more than a long while.

One of the dangers in affixing comparative advertising claims or content to the product itself may be, over time the claim might lose its original truth; perhaps that’s why the label is removable?

Brands, Who Could Hang a Name on You?

Posted in Articles, Branding, Dilution, Famous Marks, First Amendment, Food, Infringement, International, Marketing, Trademark Bullying, Trademarks

Over the years, we’ve written much about trademark bullying. When the mantle fits, and when it doesn’t. When a brand has a realistic view of its rights, and when the claimed scope is bloated.

We’ve never before written about “Ruby Tuesday,” neither the Rolling Stones’ song nor the struggling restaurant chain, until now — and both at the same time, so thank you Techdirt.

As reported by Munchies, MusicFeeds, and Timothy Geigner of Techdirt, the Ruby Tuesday restaurant chain is threatening trademark litigation against an Australian band, Ruby Tuesdays.

In a twist of double irony, Techdirt hangs the pejorative “trademark bully” name on Ruby Tuesday, for copying the Rolling Stones’ song title and then bullying an Australian band from using it too.

While the reported facts are incomplete and insufficient for judging the merits, one of the lines from the restaurant chain’s demand letter caught my eye, as it appears to impute bad faith:

“[T]he knowing adoption of a mark intending to play off a well-established mark is among the most egregious of trademark violations, warranting courts to apply the harshest of consequences.”

If you’re humming to the lyrics “yesterday don’t matter if it’s gone,” please still consider reviewing an early blog post gem about imputing bad faith, When Intent Matters in Trademark Matters:

“One of the unfortunate aspects of trademark practice is the permission that exists in the law to challenge the motives and intentions of people.”

“[T]his permission is frequently abused . . . when the strength of a case doesn’t seem like enough without injecting an unhealthy dose of emotion into the matter.”

“Even the pejorative “trademark bully” label . . . garners public sympathy while imputing evil intentions to the trademark owner aiming to enforce its rights.”

“Less emotion and more objective facts should drive decisions on the question of likely confusion. If a case screams bad faith based on the objective facts, fine, make the case, but recognize this is likely a rare case.”

“Imputing motives and intentions to people is a messy, dangerous, and emotional business, trademark types should honor the law’s permission to to explore proof of bad faith intent, but not abuse it.”

In other words, initial demand letters shouldn’t attack motives, instead objective, unlawful actions.

And, those tempted to hang the pejorative trademark bully mantle before knowing the facts and law should pause and recognize that hanging the name and mantle also attacks motives.

Having said that, brands, when you really do overreach there are consequences.

Keep in mind, you might just find the infamous trademark bully mantle hanging around your neck, whether the actual merits of the facts and law warrant it or not.

Ain’t life unkind?

Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday, in more ways than one . . . .

Can a Word Which Means a Lot (Aloha) Mean Almost Nothing in Trademark?

Posted in Articles, Branding, Fair Use, Genericide, Marketing, Mixed Bag of Nuts, Sight, Sound, Squirrelly Thoughts, Trademarks, USPTO

Hawaii seems to be on the mind here at DuetsBlog lately. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting three Hawaiian islands for the first time. While there, I quickly became acquainted with Hawaiian life and language. It’s a beautiful place; I recommend everyone visit.

When I first landed on Kauai, the “garden island,” I was quickly greeted with “Aloha,” in sound, sight, and mind. Although most understand “Aloha” to be a friendly greeting, the word has much greater meaning. It also means love, affection, peace, compassion, and mercy. In one word, it embodies Hawaii–and, indeed, the State of Hawaii has declared that Aloha is its official spirit. It is “more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation. . . . ‘Aloha’ means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return. ‘Aloha’ is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence. ‘Aloha’ means to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to know the unknowable.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 5-7.5(a). All government employees are instructed to “contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the ‘Aloha Spirit.'” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 5-7.5(b). I guess they don’t call it the “Aloha State” for nothing!

With such importance to native Hawaiians, citizens of Hawaii, and the state themselves, it is no wonder that “Aloha” has also become a popular company, place, product, and service name on the islands. Throughout my journey there, I began to notice Aloha almost everywhere I went. See, for example, the following:

And the list goes on… In fact, a basic USPTO search revealed almost 500 live Aloha marks, and a search on the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs revealed over 10,000!

Seeing Aloha used so frequently caused me to ponder the potential risks of choosing a word like ‘Aloha’ for use in a brand. On the one hand, the word used in connection with most goods, services, and places is arbitrary or fanciful. What is, for example, “Aloha Tofu?” And the word may be suggestive or descriptive of Hawaiian roots. But on the other hand, the word “Aloha” is so ubiquitous that it can hardly be said to be inherently distinctive. Its common use, standing alone, does not immediately identify a single source and seemingly undermines the ability to develop secondary meaning in the minds of at least a Hawaiian public constantly bombarded with the word. Tying additional words to Aloha (e.g., “Aloha Fridays” or “Liquid Aloha”) might create more distinctiveness. But there seems to be an overarching risk that the mark’s initial generic non-distinctiveness will never be overcome. This risk is akin to genericide, but not due to expropriation–rather, widespread appropriation.

I enjoy the Aloha spirit and hope it spreads far and wide. But its ubiquitous adoption could turn a word which means quite a bit (see above), into a word which means very little when it comes to trademark law.

Laches Defense Applies to Cancellation Actions – Cosmetic Warriors v. Pinkette Clothing

Posted in Infringement, Mixed Bag of Nuts, Trademarks, TTAB

In Cosmetic Warriors v. Pinkette Clothing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed an opinion a couple weeks ago, reconfirming that the equitable defense of laches (unreasonable and prejudicial delay in bringing a lawsuit) applies in trademark cancellation actions, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has recently curtailed that defense in copyright and patent cases, and even if such an action is brought within the five-year window for bringing certain types of cancellation claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064.

In this case, Cosmetic Warriors, makers of LUSH brand cosmetics, filed a lawsuit against a fashion company, Pinkette Clothing, that markets LUSH-branded clothing, claiming trademark infringement and seeking cancellation of its trademark registration. But the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Cosmetic Warriors waited too long (nearly five years) to bring its case after it “should have known about its claims.” According to well-established precedent, because the Lanham Act contains no statute of limitations, courts apply a presumption in favor of laches if the plaintiff’s delay is longer than the most analogous state statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit concluded that California’s analogous four-year statute of limitations for trademark infringement actions applied. Therefore, because Cosmetic Warriors’ delay was beyond four years, the court held a “strong presumption in favor of laches” applied.

Cosmetic Warriors argued that laches could not bar its claims for cancellation, based on a five-year period for cancellation actions specified in 15 U.S.C. § 1064, and based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent limiting the defense of laches in copyright and patent infringement actions, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014) (Copyright Act), and SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) (Patent Act).

The Ninth Circuit rejected Cosmetic Warriors’ arguments based on the Supreme Court precedent from copyright and patent cases, stating, “the principle at work in those cases—a concern over laches overriding a statute of limitations—does not apply here, where the Lanham Act has no statute of limitations and expressly makes laches a defense to cancellation,” see 15 U.S.C. § 1069. Regarding the five-year deadline of 15 U.S.C. § 1064, the court held “[t]here is no question that [15 U.S.C. § 1064] is not a statute of limitations in the usual sense of barring an action entirely once a defined period expires”; rather, that statute “merely limits the grounds on which cancellation may be sought. A petition brought within five years of registration may assert any ground …. By contrast, a petition brought five years after registration (against an incontestable mark) may only assert one of several enumerated grounds.”

This opinion by the Ninth Circuit accords with similar precedent from other federal courts and follows the position of the leading trademark treatise, McCarthy on Trademarks §§ 20:74, 76. It is another reminder to trademark owners and practitioners of the importance of monitoring for infringing uses, and acting quickly to initiate enforcement actions. As in this case, and according to the maxim often quoted by courts, “[t]hose who sleep on their rights, lose them.”

Is Dr. Pepper Pulling (Hawaiian) Punches in Enforcement Efforts?

Posted in Branding, Dilution, Famous Marks, Food, Infringement, Trademarks

On a recent shopping trip, I couldn’t help but notice some interesting brand extensions inside and outside the stores.

My encounter inside involved Burt’s Bees . The brand encompasses a wide variety of lip balms, lotions, cosmetics, and personal body care items. (pets, too). Yet I discovered a new addition to the lineup: Burt’s Bees protein shake powder.

While most cosmetics and lip balm companies don’t make a jump into the nutrition field (a ChapStick shake just doesn’t sound appetizing), Burt’s Bees’ extension seems to make sense. In my mind, I’ve always associated it with an image of healthy, natural products, and nutrition products seem to fit that image.

Outside, I ran into a similar situation in the lawn and garden center: a blast from childhood past:

This seemed a bit further afield than Burt’s Bees. Had my childhood sugary “fruit” drink really expanded into live flowers? After all, the company does sell Hawaiian Punch lip balm.

However, the answer seems to be no. The flowers are a sold by Canadian company Fernlea Flowers. The company has even registered the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, without an opposition from Dr. Pepper/Seven Up (the owner of rights in the HAWAIIAN PUNCH mark).

Are flowers sufficiently related to fruit juice and lip balm such that Dr. Pepper should have objected to the use of HAWAIIAN PUNCH for flowers? Generally speaking, I’d say the goods are highly unrelated. Yet the marks are identical, the HAWAIIAN PUNCH mark has been licensed for other non-food goods, and the HAWAIIAN PUNCH mark is arguably famous. Plus, the mark could have been licensed because the flowers are the colors of various flavors of Hawaiian Punch drinks. Are these factors enough to create a likelihood of confusion?

If there isn’t a likelihood of confusion, is there a claim for dilution? This seems more plausible, but would extending protection of HAWAIIAN PUNCH to live plants in this instance effectively give the owner a right in gross to the phrase HAWAIIAN PUNCH? Is that okay for marks that can establish that they are famous? What do you think, was this an enforcement punch worth pulling?

History Saves Bourbon Distillery From Trademark Infringement

Posted in Fair Use, Infringement, Law Suits

They say you can’t run away from your past, it will eventually catch up to you. Sazerac Brands may have just learned that lesson the hard way, thanks to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sazerac Brands owns rights in the OLD TAYLOR and COLONEL E.H. TAYLOR brands of whiskey (distilled at Sazerac’s Buffalo Trace distillery). It isn’t surprising, then, that Sazerac was not pleased when a new company, Peristyle, began using “Old Taylor” to refer to its in-development distillery in social media and in the press. Sazerac sued Peristyle for trademark infringement, resulting in a multi-year legal battle that ended earlier this month with the Sixth Circuit’s ruling (probably, pending further review).

But back to the history lesson. In 1887, Colonel Edmond Haynes Taylor, Jr.  built the Old Taylor Distillery in Kentucky, one of the most prolific distilleries of its time. It was more like the destination breweries you see today: it was a castle with gardens, pools, turrets, pergolas, and other embellishments that were uncommon at the time.

Prohibition came and sales disappeared. The distillery and the brand changed hands multiple times after World War II. Ultimately, the distillery was shut down in 1972, but Old Taylor brand whiskey continued. Most recently, the rights to the brand were purchased by Sazerac in 2009. The actual distillery became abandoned and run-down. Nature and vandals took their toll, even on the once picturesque pool (seen below, or here for more photos).

It remained this way until 2014, when Peristyle purchased the land with the intent of renovating the grounds and buildings for a new brand of whiskey. However, at the time of renovation, Peristyle had not yet decided on a new name and instead referred to the location as “the Former Old Taylor Distillery” or simply “Old Taylor.” Even though the distillery had been shut down for more than forty years, there was still a 400 foot “Old Taylor Distillery” sign on a warehouse and a “The Old Taylor Distillery Company” sign located at building’s main entrance.

Peristyle informed Sazerac that it intended to market its spirits under a different name than Old Taylor. Yet Sazerac pressed forward with its claims, even after Peristyle announced that its products would be marketed under the brand Castle & Key. Part of Sazerac’s concerns stemmed from Peristyle’s intent to keep the Old Taylor signs on its distillery and the “Old Taylor” name as well as continued references to Old Taylor in marketing and in the press for Castle & Key.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Peristyle, concluding that Peristyle’s display and usage constituted fair use of the Old Taylor trademark. The court reasoned that Peristyle’s use of the name was historical in nature, describing the origins of the distillery and its physical location. After all, the court noted, the building is listed as the “Old Taylor Distillery” on the National Register of Historic Places.

It’s difficult to fault Sazerac for being concerned by Peristyle’s conduct, at least initially. But the court’s decision provides a lesson beyond history: owners of brands with a long lifespan should carefully consider the context in which a third-party is “using” their mark and whether fair use may apply.