Trademark Year in Review (2004):
Overview of Litigation and
Legislative Developments
Boston Bar Association
January 20, 2005
Julia Huston, Esq.
(617) 443-9292 ext 264
jhuston@bromsun.com
Developments in the Supreme
Court
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v.
Lasting Impression I, Inc.,
125 S.Ct. 542 (2004)
District court found MICROCOLOR for
permanent makeup to be fair use
Ninth Circuit reversed
Supreme Court reversed and remanded
 Defendant need not prove a lack of likelihood
of confusion
 However, some likelihood of confusion factors
may bear on fair use
Intent to adopt another’s mark suggests lacks of
good faith fair use
Actual confusion suggests that defendant may not
be using in descriptive manner, but as a trademark
Developments in the First Circuit
Beacon Mut. Ins. Co.
v. OneBeacon Ins. Group,
376 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004)
 ONEBEACON and BEACON MUTUAL marks
for worker compensation insurance services
Caused actual confusion among injured workers,
health care workers, third party insurers, and
attorneys
No actual confusion among purchasers
(employer)
Reversed summary judgment for
defendant
Infringement caused actual confusion
among those in a position to influence
sales and others, and therefore
harmed plaintiff’s goodwill and
reputation
Author Names as Trademarks
Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13
(1st Cir. 2004)
No secondary meaning in name among
book purchasers
Zyla v. Wadsworth, 360 F.3d 243 (1st
Cir. 2004)
False attribution of authorship actionable
under copyright law
General Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat,
364 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2004)
Intra-company shipments from U.S. to
U.K. followed by overseas sales do not
constitute “use in commerce”
One party’s decreasing contacts with
the U.S. and failure to assert ownership
of the mark for over a decade resulted
in abandonment of the mark.
Developments in Other
Circuits
Likelihood of Confusion
 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape
Comm. Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.
2004)
 Netscape “keyed” to banner ads
 Summary judgment to Netscape reversed
 Initial interest confusion actionable in
Ninth Circuit
Trade Dress
 Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc.,
384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004)
 Cowprint trade dress protectable
 Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distrib.,
LLC, 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004) (cert.
petition filed November 10, 2004)
 Beaded design of ice cream not protectable
Dilution
 Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer
Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)
 Prospective application of FTDA affirmed
 Fame must be measured as of date of
defendant’s first diluting use
Savin Corp. v. The Savin Group, 391
F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004)
Use of identical marks give rise to
presumption of actual dilution
SAVIN could be famous for office support
services
New Dilution Legislation?
Likelihood of dilution, not actual dilution,
standard
Acquired distinctiveness qualifies
No more “niche fame”
Tarnishment actionable
Fair Use and Nominative
Fair Use Defenses
 Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums
Inc., 381 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2004)
 Use of KIRBY for vacuum cleaners by
unauthorized dealer permissible
Bumble Bee Seafoods, L.L.C. v. UFS
Indus. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1684 (S.D.N.Y.
2004)
Use of BUMBLEE BEE TUNA by maker of
tuna salad permissible
Descriptiveness and
Genericness
 FREEBIES held generic
 Retail Services Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, 364
F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2004)
 PATENTS.COM held descriptive
 In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171
(Fed. Cir. 2004)
 LAWOFFICE.NET held descriptive
 DeGidio v. West Group Corp., 355 F.3d 506 (6th
Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct 2842
Use of Personal Names as Marks
 BRENNAN’S weak, no distinctiveness
in New York City
 Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurant,
L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)
 NILES the camel protectable
 Peacable Planet Inc. v. Ty Inc., 362 F.3d
986 (7th Cir.) (2004), cert. denied, 125
S.Ct 275 (2004)
Developments in
Massachusetts
Baystate Savings Bank v.
Baystate Financial Services, LLC,
338 F.Supp.2d 181 (D. Mass. 2004)
(Gorton, J.)
 No preliminary injunction for BAYSTATE
 No acquired distinctiveness despite use since 1895
 Different services
 Savings bank services
 Investment and insurance services
Converse Inc. v. Reebok
International, Ltd., 328
F.Supp.2d 166
(D. Mass. 2004) (Lindsay, J.)
Denied motion for contempt
Sanctioned plaintiff for bringing motion
Reebok’s use of the mark ALL-STAR in
the phrase NBA DOWNTIME ALL-STAR
GRAFFITI
Consent decree covered ALL-STAR and
all Converse trademarks
“So as to be likely to cause confusion,
mistake or deception as to source”
Failed to comply with the specificity
requirements of Rule 65(d)
What to Watch for in 2005
Trademark Infringement Cases
Ken’s Foods, Inc.
v.
Ken’s Steak House, Inc.
(Judge Gertner)
Zone Perfect Nutrition Company
v.
Hershey Foods Corp.,
Hershey Chocolate & Confectionary
Corp., and Barry D. Sears
(Judge Stearns)
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
v.
Beat the House, LLC
(Judge Tauro)
False Advertising Cases
Vermont Pure Holdings LTD
v.
Nestle Waters North America, Inc.
and Nestle SA
(Judge Woodlock)
First Act Inc.
v.
Brook Mays Music Company, Inc.
(Judge Harrington)
McNeil-PPC, Inc.
v.
Pfizer, Inc.
(SDNY)
Closing Thoughts
Trademark Year in Review (2004):
Overview of Litigation and
Legislative Developments
Boston Bar Association
January 20, 2005
Julia Huston, Esq.
(617) 443-9292 ext 264
jhuston@bromsun.com