Each month, Erise's trademark attorneys examine the latest developments in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the courts, and across the enterprise to bring you the stories you need to know:
Chanel wins $4 million trademark infringement judgment against reseller
Last month, a federal jury awarded international fashion giant Chanel $4 million in statutory damages, finding the reseller liable for trademark infringement, false affiliation, selling counterfeit products and false advertising. commanded.
What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) is a retailer of used clothing, bags, jewelry, and accessories, including Chanel products. According to the cross-motion for summary judgment, WGACA is not an authorized Chanel reseller and did not purchase inventory directly from Chanel or an authorized Chanel reseller.
The jury found that WGACA acted with “deliberate reckless disregard or willful blindness” in its use of Chanel's hashtags, including #WGACACHANEL. The jury also ruled for Chanel on the question of whether WGACA acted “intentionally, with reckless disregard, or with willful blindness” by offering non-genuine Chanel products for sale. Chanel claimed that WGACA promoted its products with phrases such as “Buy WGACA Chanel – 100% Authenticity Guaranteed.”
As IP Watchdog points out, the jury's verdict could have implications for another Chanel lawsuit filed against luxury goods consignment retailer The RealReal.
Federal Circuit finds error in TTAB's likelihood of confusion analysis
IP Watchdog also noted the Federal Circuit's decision to reverse the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) denial of a petition filed by the owner of the BABY MAGIC mark to cancel the mark BABIES' MAGIC TEA. I picked it up.
According to the judgment, the petitioner, Natera International, owns four registrations of the standard character mark “BABY MAGIC” for toiletry products, including shampoos, oils, lotions, wipes, ointments and lotions. Sama Bensalem owns the standard character mark “BABIES' MAGIC TEA,'' which stands for “baby medicated teas that treat colic and gas and help babies sleep better.''
The TTAB denied Mr. Natera's petition because the Board failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion after conducting an analysis under Article 13. dupont factor. Natera appealed, arguing that substantial evidence did not support the TTAB's findings regarding the similarity and nature of the products (dupont element 2) and trade channels (dupont Element 3) Averse to the possibility of confusion, the TTAB erred in not giving greater weight to the similarity of marks (dupont Factor 1) and BABY MAGIC mark fame (dupont Factor 5) is used to analyze the overall probability of disruption.
The CAFC Panel agreed with Mr. Natella that: dupont Element 1 has TTAB “ [the] BABIES' MAGIC mark and its entirety [the] The BABY MAGIC mark looks and sounds almost the same, and has the same meaning and commercial feel. ”
Second dupont The factor “considers whether a consumer would perceive the parties' respective goods and services to be sufficiently related to cause confusion about the source or origin of the goods or services,” Natella experts said. Although it “cited several examples of other umbrella baby brand companies purporting to offer specific products in both the baby skin care product category and the infant ingestion product category,” the TTAB called this testimony “a basic It was rejected as “not supported by evidence.” However, a Federal Circuit panel determined that this testimony was relevant to the product's relevance, and Bensalem's attorneys acknowledged during oral argument that the third-party evidence was “arguably highly relevant.” He pointed out.
number 3 dupont The coefficient takes into account[t]Similarity or dissimilarity of trade channels that have been established and are likely to continue. ” The Commission found that the TTAB's finding regarding the third factor was not supported by substantial evidence because it ignored Bensalem's admission that the parties' goods were sold in similar trade channels such as Walmart and Amazon. I agreed with Natella's assertion that this is not the case.
Ultimately, the panel concluded that the TTAB erred in its initial assessment. dupont factor and failed to address relevant evidence regarding the third. dupont element. However, the panel could not confirm whether the TTAB adequately addressed relevant evidence regarding the second incident. dupont element. The matter is now in the hands of the TTAB for reconsideration.
Other marks in the news
[View source.]
