Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd. v. Studio Moderna SA, No. 10 C 7790, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2011) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiffs' (collectively "Arcadia") motion to dismiss defendants' (collectively "Moderna") counterclaims and denied Moderna's motion to dismiss Arcadia's claims in this Lanham Act case involving Arcadia's TOPSHOP and Moderna's TOP SHOP TV marks.  In 2004, the parties entered a settlement agreement (the "Agreement") pursuant to which Moderna agreed not to use TOPSHOP to sell women's clothing in any country.  Arcadia alleged that Moderna violated the Agreement beginning in 2010 when it began selling women's clothing in the US on Moderna's topshoptv.com website.

Moderna's Motion

Moderna argued that Arcadia did not plausibly plead a protectable mark because Moderna was the first user of the mark.  But a motion to dismiss must assume the truth of Arcadia's allegations and Arcadia plausibly pled that it was the first user of the mark.  Additionally, Moderna's arguments ignored that Arcadia's complaint challenged the validity of Moderna's TOPSHELF TV registration.

Arcadia sufficiently pled fame as part of its trademark dilution claim.  While Arcadia did not parrot the language of the statute, it pled its TOPSHOP brands were "world famous", that the brand is one of the most successful in the world, that there have been millions of dollars in US sales and that the brand is regularly featured in US and international fashion and celebrity magazines and other media.

Arcadia's Motion

The Court dismissed Moderna's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that it was the senior user of its TOP SHOP TV mark.  Arcadia, however, had never challenged Moderna's TOP SHOP TV mark.  Arcadia's only claims, in the suit or otherwise, were with respect to its TOPSHOP mark.  As a result, any decision regarding the mark would be an impermissible advisory opinion.

The Court dismissed Moderna's trademark misuse counterclaim because Moderna did not show that trademark misuse was an affirmative cause of action. Moderna was, however, allowed to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense of trademark misuse.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SCI Ill. Servs., Inc. v. Mitzvah Memorial Funerals, Inc., No. 10 C 6111, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2011) (Holderman, C.J.).

Judge Holderman denied defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's Lanham Act false designation of original claim in this trademark dispute involving funeral home trademarks - Lloyd Mandel Levayah Funerals (plaintiff) and Lloyd Mandel Mitzvah Memorial Funerals (defendant). Plaintiff properly pled that it had a protectable mark and that there was a likelihood of confusion as to defendants' funeral services. The Court could not find the marks so dissimilar that plaintiff could not demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the marks as a matter of law. The Court refused to consider defendants' motion as to other claims because defendant did not argue or support its motion as to the other claims in its briefing.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Newt LLC v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 09 C 4792, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2011) (Coleman, J.)

Judge Coleman denied defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but dismissed the false patent marking case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to sufficiently plead intent to deceive. The Court held that plaintiff Newt had standing to sue without proof of particularized injury, citing Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc., 619 F. 3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Newt alleged that defendant Graphic Packaging ("GPI") falsely marked the products and sold them to the customer defendants. GPI made no allegations that the customer defendants marked the accused products. The customer defendants were, therefore, dismissed.

Further, all defendants were dismissed because Newt only made generalized intent allegations -- e.g., that defendants were "sophisticated companies." 

Finally, the Complaint was dismissed because Newt made only general allegations against all defendants, rather than particular allegations against each defendant.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Free Green Can, LLC v. Green Recycling Enters., LLC, No. 10 C 5764, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2011 (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted the individual defendants' and Aslan Financial Group's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion to dismiss plaintiff Free Green Can's trademark infringement and related state law claims. As an initial matter, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as to all state law claims because while Free Green Can pled diversity of citizenship, it did not plead that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Because Aslan Financial Group was only accused of state law claims, it was dismissed.

The federal trademark claims against the individual defendants were dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the individual defendants were accused of infringement based upon corporate acts of defendant Green Recycling Enterprises, of which each was an officer. But in order to state a claim for infringement, or any tort, by corporate officers or employees Free Green Can was required to allege each individual defendant had actively participated in the tortious acts. Because there were no such allegations, the infringement claims were dismissed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. v. HHI Infusion Servs., Inc., No. 10 C 3772, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff Healix Infusion Therapy's ("Healix") complaint, which included copyright infringement, trademark infringement and tortious interference claims, all related to the parties' competition for medical infusion services, as follows:

                                                                       Copyright

The Court dismissed Healix's claims for statutory damages on its copyright claims. The record showed that Healix filed for its copyright registrations after defendants began the alleged infringements, and more than three months after first publication. As a result, statutory damages were not recoverable. Healix could only receive actual damages. Furthermore, the Court denied Healix's request to amend its pleadings to include a demand for actual damages because Healix had already filed four complaints in the case and never sought actual damages.

                                                                       Trademark

Although sparse, Healix's trademark claims were sufficiently plead. Defendants argued that Healix had not pled use in commerce. But it was sufficient that Healix pled that Defendants displayed Healix's marks to the public and that Defendants allegedly copied Healix's marks with intent to use them in selling Defendants services to the consuming public.

                                                                  Tortious Interference

The Court took Defendants' motion to dismiss Healix's tortious interference claim under advisement, in favor of a fully briefed summary judgment motion on the issue that more fully set out the relevant facts.

The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss defendant Metro Infectious Disease Consultants ("Metro"). Defendants argued that Metro was never specifically accused to have committed any acts in the complaint. Instead, Healix defined as a single entity three defendants, including Metro. But the Court held that it was sufficient in this instance for Healix to group Metro with two other defendants and make all allegations against Metro as part of the defined entity.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Avery Dennison Corp. v. Continental Datalabel, Inc., No. 10 C 2744, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2010) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly granted plaintiff Avery Dennision's ("ADC") Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant Continental Datalabel's ("CDI") inequitable conduct, Walker Process fraud and sham litigation counterclaims in this patent dispute regarding labels with a tear off liner to expose a portion of a label column for easy removal.

Inequitable Conduct

CDI alleged two bases of inequitable conduct. First, ADC allegedly intentionally failed to tell the examiner that certain limitations outlined in a series of bullet points were from a particular prior art reference. That claim filed because ADC had previously disclosed the prior art reference at issue to the examiner - once a reference is before an examiner, it cannot be found to have been withheld from the examiner. Second, ADC allegedly intentionally failed to disclose to the examiner that curling up of labels is an inherent characteristic of adhesive labels. But ADC had disclosed the inherent curling up by disclosing various prior art references regarding adhesive labels that taught the inherent curling up, combined with the examiner's presumed experience in the art.

Walker Process Fraud Claim

Because CDI's Walker Process claim was premised upon the alleged inequitable conduct, CDI's Walker Process claim failed. The Court further noted that because inequitable conduct is a broader concept than Walker Process fraud, a party that fails to make its case for inequitable conduct, cannot make a Walker Process fraud claim.

Sham Litigation

CDI's sham litigation claim was based upon allegations that ADC knew the patent was invalid based upon the Brady prior art reference, which was before the examiner, and because had ADC tested CDI's accused labels, ADC would have realized its suit was baseless. Because the Brady reference was before the examiner, however, the Court could not find that the claim was "objectively baseless" as required for sham litigation. ADC could have reasonably believed that after the examiner considered Brady and granted ADC's patent, ADC's patent was in fact valid over Brady.

And ADC's alleged failure to test the accused CDI product was not sufficient for a sham litigation claim. Sham litigation requires more than an unsuccessful suit. While CDI may eventually prove that it did not infringe, ADC's failure to perform one test identified by CDI does "not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility" that ADC's suit was in bad faith.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Optics Planet, Inc. v. OpticSale, Inc., No. 09 C 7934, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 14, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

The Court granted in part Plaintiff Optics Planet's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Initially, the Court noted that defendants' tortious interference with prospective business relationships and with prospective economic advantage were not separate counts, but at most separate theories of recovery for a single court, calling the claims "Tweedledum and Tweedledee."

But the claims, whether single or multiple counts did not survive the competitor's privilege. Defendants offered no evidence showing that plaintiff was doing anything except "feathering its own competitive nest". Defendants' attempted monopolization claims were also dismissed because there was no evidence that plaintiff did anything but compete, and there was no indication that plaintiff would or could acquire power over market pricing.

Finally, the Court dismissed defendant's accounting counterclaim to the extent the claim was based upon the dismissed counterclaims.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Simonian v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 10 C 1297, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte struck portions of defendants' answer to plaintiff's false patent marking case. First, the Court struck denials that followed defendants' statements that they lacked information and belief. While a lack of information and belief acts as a denial, denying allegations as to which you cannot form a belief is "oxymoronic."

Second, the Court struck defendants' improper affirmative defenses. Several of defendants' affirmative defenses were improper because they had already been brought into issue by denying allegations in the complaint. The Court also struck defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) affirmative defense with leave to promptly file a "properly supported" motion to dismiss.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Golden Golf Lighting, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., L.P., No. 07 C 1086, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 18, 2010) (Andersen, J.).

Judge Andersen denied defendant Clarin's Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss this Lanham Act case regarding Clarin's allegedly fraudulent procurement of a trademark related to folding seats.

First, 15 U.S.C. § 1120 limited recovery to injuries sustained "in consequence" of a trademark registered by fraud or false reasons. The damages need not be to a trademark, as Clarin argued. Plaintiff's alleged damage because its folding chairs were seized at the U.S. border based upon alleged infringement of Clarin's trademark and plaintiffs allegedly lost business based upon the seizure. Those facts were sufficient to plead that Clarin was the proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged damages.

Plaintiffs pled fraud with sufficient particularity by incorporating by reference the fraud-related decision in Specialized Seating v. Greenwich Indus., L.P., 472 F.Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Finally, Plaintiffs did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) or 8(d)(1) by combining two claims into a single count. Notice pleading did not require separate headings for each claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., No. 10 C 204, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2010) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve granted in part plaintiff/counter-defendant Sloan's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motions in the patent infringement case involving a flush valve handle assembly. The Court dismissed defendant/counter-plaintiff's (collectively "Zurn") invalidity and noninfringement counterclaims to the extent they challenged patent claims other than those identified as allegedly infringed in Sloan's complaint. The Court could have exercised jurisdiction over the counterclaims if Zurn had met the MedImmune standard independently for each of Sloan's unasserted claims, but Zurn did not.

The Court denied Sloan's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Zurn's inequitable conduct counterclaim. Zurn met the materiality standard by pleading that Sloan should have known that admissions made in a prior, related reexamination proceeding were relevant to the Examiner in the later application. 

The Court dismissed Zurn's estoppel and misuse affirmative defenses. Each were pled in a single sentence and without particularized facts.

The Court also dismissed Zurn's lack of actual notice affirmative defense. Zurn also denied Sloan's actual notice allegation in its answer. Because actual notice was denied in the answer, it was not a proper affirmative defense. Finally, the Court dismissed Zurn's noninfringement and exceptional case affirmative defenses.  Neither was a proper affirmative defense. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bone Care Int'l, LLC v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., No. 08 C 1083, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2010) (Dow, Jr.).

Judge Dow granted in part plaintiffs' motion to dismiss plaintiff's inequitable conduct affirmative defenses and corresponding counterclaim in this patent case related to a treatment for hyperthyroidism. The Court dismissed defendants' defenses and claims based upon infectious unenforceability. Defendants showed a relationship between the patents-in-suit and the earlier patents. But defendants did not meet the Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) pleading standards because they did not plead an "immediate and necessary" relationship between the patents-in-suit and the earlier patents in the family.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to prior art references that had been disclosed in earlier, related patent prosecutions, but not the prosecutions of the patents-in-suit. Defendants' allegations were sufficient to allow the Court to infer that the prior art references were intentionally withheld to avoid rejections similar to those from the earlier prosecutions based upon that prior art. It did not matter that defendants did not allege that the prior art references were not cumulative. Rule 9(b) pleading is designed to put the opposing part on notice, not to require the recitation of "certain magic words." The Court dismissed defendants' allegations regarding allegedly false statements to the PTO because other writings requested the applicant did not believe the statements to be false. 

Defendants' allegations regarding certain of plaintiffs' undisclosed articles were sufficiently plead. Defendants identified specific articles written by patentee, and plead that they were relevant and that patentee failed to disclose them. 

Finally, defendants sufficiently pled that plaintiff's submitted article made misleading statements about the state of the art. Among other reasons, the Court noted that the truth of the contested statements could not be decided upon a motion to dismiss. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

More Cupcakes, LLC v. Lovemore LLC, No. 09 C 3555, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 29, 2009) (Kocoras, J.)

Judge Kocoras denied defendants (collectively “Lovemore”) Fed. R. Cir. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Fed. R. Cir. P.12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the individual Lovemore defendants’ (collectively "Lovemore individuals") based upon the fiduciary shield doctrine in this Lanham Act dispute regarding plaintiff More Cupcake’s LOVE MORE mark for use on t-shirts. The Court did, however, grant Lovemore’s §1404 motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York.

The parties agreed that the Court lacked general jurisdiction and argued only specific jurisdiction. The Court held that it had specific jurisdiction based upon the effects test. Lovemore’s alleged infringing acts were aimed at More Cupcakes in Illinois when Lovemore approved sales of allegedly infringing t-shirts to Illinois addresses after being warned of the alleged infringement in a Patent & Trademark Office proceeding and in settlement talks with More Cupcakes. Lovemore’s interactive website coupled with sales to Illinois also created specific jurisdiction. The fact that Lovemore’s most recent Illinois sale was to More Cupcakes’ counsel did not impact the analysis. Lovemore still knowingly sold product within Illinois. 

The fiduciary shield doctrine did not apply to the individual defendants, who were both owners and operators of Lovemore. The fiduciary shield doctrine denies personal jurisdiction over individuals who contact Illinois solely for the benefit of their employees and not themselves. But the doctrine does not apply to owners of a company that have discretion over whether or not they do business in Illinois. As Lovemore owners, therefore, the Lovemore individuals are not protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine.

For similar reasons, while corporate officers are generally not personally liable for corporate trademark infringement claims, More Cupcakes’ claims against the Lovemore individuals survived. Both individuals were owners of Lovemore and the Complaint alleged that they personally directed the allegedly infringing acts.

Finally, the Court transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York.  While More Cupcakes’ chosen forum deserves deference, the material events regarding the alleged infringement all occurred in New York where the t-shirts were designed, made, offered for sale and sold. And the Court held that the convenience factors, such as locations of documents and witnesses, were all neutral.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SourceOne Global Partners LLC v. KGK Synergize, Inc., No. 08 C 7403, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 21, 2009) (Schenkier, Mag J.).

Judge Schenkier dismissed declaratory judgment defendant/counter-plaintiff KGK Synergize's ("KGK") patent, trademark, Lanham Act and related state law claims against declaratory judgment plaintiff/counter-defendant SourceOne's President for failure to meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.*  The Court held that KGK had not sufficiently pled allegations to support the factors in the veil piercing analysis, in particular:

• Allegations of episodes of "subpar record keeping" was not sufficient to prove SourceOne's failure to observe corporate formalities;
   
• Conclusory statements that SourceOne's corporate officers were allegedly not given autonomy to make decisions were not sufficient to show that officers or directors were non-functioning;
   
• The President and his family borrowing against a home equity loan to support SourceOne was not sufficient to show SourceOne was a "mere 'dummy or sham.'"; and
   
• the allegation that the President exerted significant control over SourceOne and personified the company was not sufficient to show a failure to maintain arm's-length relationships among related entities.

The Court also held that KGK's direct patent infringement claims against the President did not meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.  KGK's only allegations about the President were conclusory and tied to SourceOne's alleged infringing actions.  KGK did not plead sufficient facts about the President independent of SourceOne to support direct patent infringement claims.

*  For more on the application of the Twombly pleading standards to patent cases, click here in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Americash Loans, LLC v. AO Ventures, LLC, No. 08 C 5147 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2009) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendant AO Ventures (“AOV”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Americash Loans' Lanham Act and related state law claims. Americash Loans alleged that AOV infringed Americash Loans' “Americash Loans” mark by advertising confusingly similar mark on AOV's website. First, the Court held that Americash Loans' prior settlement of a trademark dispute with a third party did not preclude this suit. The prior suit involved a different mark, “Americash,” and Americash Loans did not allege that AOV was acting as an agent of the third party involved in the earlier settlement when it allegedly used the infringing marks.

The Court also held that the fact that AOV was not accused of using the exact mark, but a confusingly similar mark was not grounds to dismiss the complaint. The Court noted that customer confusion between similar marks was a recognized part of trademark infringement analysis and that suits were routinely filed alleging infringement based upon the use of marks that were not identical to the asserted trademark.

Further, the Court held that whether AOV's display of a third party's advertisement was a use of the accused mark was a question of fact that could not be resolved by a Rule 12 motion. Finally, the Court held that it could not decide whether AOV's alleged infringement was a nominative fair use of Americash Loans' mark because any fair use analysis involves questions of fact.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nova Design Build, Inc. v. Grace Hotels, LLC., No. 08 C 2855, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2009) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim copyright infringement case. Plaintiffs claimed that they developed plans for a Holiday Inn Express hotel defendants planned to build, and that defendants infringed the copyrights in plaintiffs’ plans by revising them with another firm and using them without plaintiffs’ permission. The Court previously held that plaintiffs’ copyright claim was sufficiently pled -- click here for more on that opinion and the case generally in the Blog's archives.  After that opinion, defendants answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim seeking among other things declaratory relief.  The Court dismissed the counterclaim as to plaintiff Annex whom defendants agreed should be dismissed.  And the Court struck defendants' request that plaintiffs' complaint be struck because the Court already denied defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

But the Court denied to dismiss defendants' counterclaim.  Plaintiffs argued that the counterclaim should be dismissed because it was not clearly pled, the legal basis was not specifically identified and it lacked factual detail.  But the Court held that notice pleading did not require good grammar or organization, nor were specific facts required.  Because defendants' counterclaim put plaintiffs on notice that their copyright was allegedly a derivative works to which defendants maintained certain rights.  To the extent plaintiffs believed additional information, the appropriate remedy was a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement.  But the Court noted that a more definite statement was not required in this case because defendants' counterclaim put plaintiffs on notice.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DeVry Inc. v. Univ. of Medicine & Health Sciences -- St. Kitts, No. 08 C 3280, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar denied defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for trademark infringement or Lanham Act false designation and false representation. Plaintiffs own and operate the Ross University School of Medicine and are the owners of ROSS and ROSS UNIVERSITY marks.  Defendant marketed its medical school as "Founded by Dr. Robert Ross" and used at least one domain for email addresses including the word "ross." Defendant is not associated with or sponsored by plaintiffs' Ross University.

Defendant argued that its representations that its institution was founded by Dr. Ross and that Dr. Ross founded Ross University were fair uses constituting an impenetrable defense requiring dismissal. The Court, however, held that the defenses did not warrant dismissal for several reasons:

• Whether the use of Dr. Ross's name constituted the use of a mark or simply his name was a question of fact not appropriate for a decision on the pleadings;
   
• While the Seventh Circuit has not explicitly adopted a normative fair use defense, it was not clear that defendant's use of Dr. Ross's name met the criteria for the defense; 
   
• There was a question of fact as to whether defendant's repeated use of the name was more than reasonably necessary to identify the product; and
   
• There was a question of fact as to whether the use of the Ross name implied sponsorship or endorsement.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Frayne v. Chicago 2016, No. 08 C 5290, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2009) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's Lanham Act Section 114(2)(D) reverse domain name highjacking and attempted highjacking claims.*  Plaintiff registered Chicago2016.com in 2004 at which time plaintiff was not aware that Chicago intended to bid for the 2016 Olympics.  In 2007, plaintiff was contacted by a representative of Chicago 2016 and asked whether plaintiff would entertain offers for the website.  Plaintiff refused and defendants eventually initiated proceedings before the World Intellectual Property Organization alleging that plaintiff registered the domain name in bad faith and in violation of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP").  Plaintiff's domain name, however, was never suspended, disabled or transferred to defendants.

Plaintiff conceded that highjacking claim should be dismissed because the domain name had not been suspended, disabled or transferred.  And the Court held that the Lanham Act did not create a cause of action for attempted highjacking.  The text of the statute specifically required that the domain name actually be suspended, disabled or transferred.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

C.S.B. Commodities, Inc. v. Urban Trend (HK) Ltd., No. 08 C 1548, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2009) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted corporate defendant Urban Trend's (“Urban Trend”) and denied the individual defendant's respective Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss plaintiff's Lanham Act unfair competition and related state law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff served the individual defendant, who was Urban Trend's president, while he was representing Urban Trend at a trade show in Illinois. The Court held that personal service created jurisdiction over the individual defendant, even though the Court may not have had jurisdiction but for personal service. And while the individual defendant was in Illinois as part of his job responsibilities representing Urban Trend at the trade show, the Fiduciary Shield Doctrine did not protect him. As Urban Trend's president, the individual defendant would have gained independent economic benefit from selling Urban Trend's products at the trade show. And as president, the individual defendant had at least some control over whether to sell or promote products in Illinois.

The Court, however, held that personal service upon Urban Trend's president was not sufficient to create jurisdiction over Urban Trend. And tradeshow attendance alone was not sufficient to create specific jurisdiction over Urban Trend. There was no evidence that Urban Trend's tradeshow efforts were particularly focused on Illinois sales, or that Urban Trend completed any sales.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kingsbury Int'l., Ltd. v. Trade the News, Inc., No 08 C 3110, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2008) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg denied defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's copyright infringement claim and defendant's alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion for a more definite statement of the claim. Plaintiff alleged that it owned a copyright in its Chicago Business Barometer monthly business index; that it specifically informed its subscribers that the index was copyrighted and that it could not be reproduced or rebroadcast in any manner until plaintiff publicly released the index at 8:45 AM; and that defendant released unidentified “parts” of the May 2007 issue of the index at 8:42 AM, three minutes before plaintiff's public release. The Court held that these allegations met the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) pleading standards, without specifically identifying which parts of the index were copied, noting that copyright claims did not require Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading. Furthermore, defendant's defense that, if anything, it copied only unprotected facts was not appropriate for a Rule 12(b) determination on the pleadings.

Finally, the Court held that the complaint was not “so vague or ambiguous” that it warranted requiring a more definite statement.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Welsh v. Big Ten Conf., Inc., No. 08 C 1342, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2008) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall granted defendant the Big Ten Conference's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, but denied the Big Ten's motion for its attorney's fees. Plaintiff claimed that it presented the Big Ten with a trade secret business plan for a Big Ten television network named the "Big Ten Network." The Big Ten allegedly told plaintiff it was not interested and then several years later started the Big Ten Network using plaintiff's trade secrets, including the Big Ten Network name. Plaintiff claimed that the Big Ten violated § 38 of the Lanham Act by filing a false declaration with the PTO stating that the Big Ten had the sole right to use the Big Ten Network mark in commerce. Plaintiff argued that the Big Ten should have disclosed plaintiff's trade secret rights in the mark. But the Court held that even if plaintiff could establish trade secret rights, the Seventh Circuit had held that it was "far from clear" whether trade secret claims fall within the scope of § 38, which is directed to statements about ownership, as opposed to statements about use in commerce. Additionally, the Court held that plaintiff's alleged development of the name did not necessarily grant plaintiff any rights in the trademark. Trademark rights are granted based upon use, not discovery or invention. And inclusion in a business plan is not a "use in commerce." Having dismissed plaintiff's federal claim and noting that the parties were not diverse, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the case.

The Court denied the Big Ten's request for its fees. First, the case was resolved on a motion to dismiss filed two months after the complaint and while plaintiff's arguments lost, the theory had not been "squarely rejected by the Seventh Circuit." As such, plaintiff's suit could not be deemed "oppressive" as is required for an award of fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stereo Optical Co., Inc. v. Judy, No. 08 C 2512, 2008 WL 4185689 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 8, 2008) (Kocoras, J.).

Judge Kocoras granted in part defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's copyright, trade secret and related state law claims. The Court noted that the Seventh Circuit required a registered copyright, not just pre-registration, to file a copyright complaint. But the Court held that it was sufficient to allege the registration and did not dismiss the claim because the registration was not attached. The Court did note, however, that the registration requirement was jurisdictional and the motion, therefore, should have been styled a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court also denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's trade secret complaints. While plaintiff did not specifically identified the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets they did allege misappropriation of customer lists, vision test methodologies and other information that could be trade secrets.

Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim because it was preempted by the copyright and trade secret claims. The alleged unjust enrichment sought damages for either the alleged copyright infringement or the alleged trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiff's other state claims, however, required additional elements and were not preempted.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Foboha GMBH v. Gram Tech., Inc., No. 08 C 969, 2008 WL 4619795 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2008) (Grady, J.).

Judge Grady denied defendants' (collectively “Gram”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs' (collectively “Foboha”) Lanham Act unfair competition and related state law claims. Foboha alleged that Gram made false and misleading statements about Gram's patent and about Foboha's alleged infringement of the patent. In particular, Gram allegedly claimed that its technology was patented while its application was still being processed and that Gram made false statements about the status of the reexamination filed by Foboha. The Court held that Foboha's claims were governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements because they were based upon Gram's allegedly false and misleading statements. And at least for the statements allegedly made about the patent during reexam, Foboha met the heightened standard by explaining what statements were made, when and where they were made, who made them and how they were made.

The Court did, however, hold that Gram's direct communications, in person or in letters to individuals, did not constitute commercial advertising and, therefore, did not constitute Lanham Act unfair competition. But Gram's statements on its website and press releases could constitute commercial advertising.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nova Design Build, Inc. v. Grace Hotels, LLC., No. 08 C 2855, 2008 WL 4450305 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2008) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ copyright infringement and related state law claims. Plaintiffs claimed that they developed plans for a Holiday Inn Express hotel defendants planned to build, and that defendants infringed the copyrights in plaintiffs’ plans by revising them with another firm and using them without plaintiffs’ permission. The Court held that plaintiffs’ copyright claim was sufficiently pled. Plaintiffs alleged ownership of a copyright, attaching the copyright registration, and that defendants infringed the copyright. Defendants’ argument that plaintiffs’ plan were a derivative work were beyond the pleadings and, therefore, not appropriate for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. 

Similarly, defendants’ argument that plaintiffs, as authors of a derivative work, lacked standing to bring their copyright suit also was beyond the scope of a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Furthermore, it was not ripe for decision because defendants made the argument for the first time on reply.

The Court also held that defendants’ arguments as to plaintiffs’ state law claims were beyond the complaint and, therefore, not sufficient for a motion to dismiss.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Aller-Caire, Inc. v. Am. Textile Co., No. 07 C 4086, 2008 WL 4066976 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2008) (Andersen, J.)

Judge Andersen granted in part and denied in part defendant American Textile Co.’s (“ATC”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Aller-Caire’s trademark infringement case. Aller-Caire allegedly began using its ALLER-CAIRE mark in 1990, but never registered it.  ATC registered its ALLER CARE mark in 2006. Both use the marks to market, at least, allergy sensitive pillow and mattress encasements. The Court dismissed Aller-Caire’s trademark count with leave to refile because it did not expressly allege a likelihood of confusion. It was not sufficient that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to infer confusion, plaintiff must plead confusion. The Court did not dismiss Aller-Caire’s tortious interference claim. Aller-Caire’s allegations would have been insufficient pursuant to Illinois law because Aller-Caire did not plead that ATC interfered with Aller-Caire’s business expectancy with a specific third party. But federal pleading requirements governed, and did not require identification of an entity.

Finally, a competitor’s privilege did not defeat Aller-Caire’s tortious interference claim. Competition cannot be tortious interference unless the competition employs wrongful means. Aller-Caire’s allegation that ATC’s alleged trademark infringement was done with malice constituted wrongful means.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Personified, LLC v. Sales Consultants of Cary, LLC, No. 08 C 3123, 2008 WL 3200842 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2008) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted declaratory judgment (“DJ”) defendant Sales Consultants of Cary’s (“SCC”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss DJ plaintiff Personified’s trademark case in favor of SCC’s later-filed District of North Carolina action. Shortly after its parent registered the trademark “Personified,” Personified began using the name and allegedly received a cease and desist letter from SCC who offered staffing services using the name “Personified.” SCC’s letter allegedly demanded that Personified immediately change its name and pay SCC damages. In response, Personified filed this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not violated trademark laws or engaged in unfair competition. SCC countersued in the District of North Carolina several days later.

The Court had federal question jurisdiction because of the Lanham Act issues.  Personified was the first to file, but the Court noted that the Seventh Circuit did not strictly follow the first-to-file rule. And the Court exercised its “wide discretion,” declining to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory action. SCC was the natural plaintiff. Instead of filing suit after receiving the cease and desist letter, Personified could have gone to SCC to resolve the dispute. Additionally, Personified was already preparing a motion to transfer the North Carolina action to the Northern District. The Court also denied a motion to stay its ruling pending a decision by the District of North Carolina. If the North Carolina Court transferred the case to the Northern District, Personified would not face substantial hardship by having to replead its DJ claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vulcan Gold, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 07 C 3371, 2008 WL 2959951 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2008) (Manning, J.)

Judge Manning granted in part defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs’ RICO claims. The Court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with leave to refile – click here to read the Blog’s post on that opinion. The Court held that plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead an enterprise. Plaintiffs only alleged that the defendants were contractually related within Google’s adsense program. And the alleged contractual relationship did not show consensual decisionmaking or joined purpose. Plaintiffs’ RICO claims were, therefore, dismissed.

The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading standards did not govern the claims because they were both based upon trademark infringement, not fraud.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Arience Builders, Inc. v. Baltes, No. 08 C 921, 2008 WL 2580166 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 17, 2008) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo denied defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) claim challenging whether plaintiff sufficiently pled a “transmission.” The Court held that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant used “a code and/or command” to “delete and/or change” plaintiff’s computer and electronic files constituted a transmission. The allegations went well beyond simply pressing a delete key, which the Seventh Circuit held was not a CFAA transmission in Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 419 (7th cir. 2006).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Judge Castillo dismissed some defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction (the wrong defendants) and denied defendant Strategic Commercial Solutions (“SCS”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Medline alleged that defendants violated its trademark and related federal and state laws by selling “Medline Savings” packages with telemarketers.

Personal Jurisdiction

The Court did not have personal jurisdiction over the Wong defendants. The Wong defendants, all individuals, did not direct any of their allegedly infringing and fraudulent calls to Illinois residents. Their only contacts with Illinois were calls to and from Illinois banks regarding processing payments and refunds. These secondary contacts were not sufficient to create personal jurisdiction.

SCS similarly did not have sufficient contacts with Illinois. But Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(K)(2) provided for national, and therefore, there was personal jurisdiction in Illinois because SCS argued it was not subject to jurisdiction in any U.S. state or territory.

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act

SCS argued that Medline could not bring its Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because it was not a “private person” that was “adversely affected” by the telemarketing as required by the Act. But the Court held that while Medline was not an aggrieved consumer, the alleged unfair use of Medline’s trademarks could have caused Medline the harm it alleged.

Trademark Infringement

The Court noted that it was not aware of a similar case in which a party was accused of trademark infringement for using marks in telemarketing. But SCS’s alleged use of Medline’s marks was a use in commerce.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 07 C 3371, 2008 WL 818346 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2008) (Manning, J.).

Judge Manning granted in part the defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO, Lanham Act and related state law claims. Plaintiffs alleged that the "parking defendants" – entities that allegedly register common misspellings of domain names – worked together and conspired with defendant Google to populate the misspelled domains with revenue-generating advertising related to the actual web sites' business.*

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA")

The Court denied the Parking Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs' ACPA claims. While plaintiffs did not allege that the Parking Defendants were the registrants of the domains at issue, they did allege that the Parking Defendants registered, owned, and controlled the sites. Furthermore, the Court would not rule on the factual issue of whether the domains – for example, vulcangolf.com and vulcanogolf.com – were confusingly similar to plaintiffs' marks.

The Court denied Google's motion to dismiss because while Google did not register or own the domains at issue, it was sufficient that they allegedly "trafficked" in them by working in concert with the other defendants.

Trademark Infringement

The Court upheld plaintiffs' trademark infringement claims. It was sufficient that plaintiffs had trademarks covering their own domain names, they were not required to have marks covering defendants' misspelled domains. Additionally, the Court could not rule upon Parking Defendants' arguments that they did not use the marks. The complaint alleged use, and determining whether Parking Defendants' particular acts constituted use would require reliance upon facts outside the complaint.

Google argued that it should be dismissed because it was, at most, an innocent infringer and it had already agreed to permanently exclude all allegedly infringing domains identified by plaintiffs. Because the only remedy against an innocent infringer was an injunction, which Google had already agreed to, Google argued should be dismissed. The Court, however, did not dismiss the trademark claims against Google because dismissal would have required reliance upon facts outside of the complaint. The Court denied the motions to dismiss plaintiffs' false designation of origin claims for the same reasons the trademark infringement claims were not dismissed.

Trademark Dilution

Defendants argued that the dilution claims must be dismissed because plaintiffs' marks were not famous. But because plaintiffs pled fame and because fame is a question of fact, the Court did not dismiss the claims.

*  This post only addresses the IP aspects of the opinion, but the opinion also considers RICO and state law issues.

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

Genender Int'l, Inc. v. Skagen Designs, Ltd., No. 07 C 5993, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2008) (Grady, J.).

Judge Grady denied defendant Skagen's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss plaintiff Genender's declaratory judgment ("DJ") case. The Court also granted in part Skagen's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, dismissing Genender's tortious interference claim. Skagen argued that Genender's DJ suit should be dismissed in favor of Skagen's later-filed suit for design patent and trade dress infringement filed in the District of Nevada. Skagen argued that dismissal was required by the Seventh Circuit's standard as set forth in Tempco Elec. Heater Corp. v. Omega Eng., Inc., 819 F.2d 746 (7th Cir. 1987). The Court, however, held that Federal Circuit law controlled because of the design patent claims. And the Federal Circuit explicitly rejected Tempco in Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (abrogated on other grounds). Instead, the Federal Circuit required that Skagen provide a "sound reason" that proceeding with the DJ would be unjust or inefficient. Skagen provided no such reason and, in fact, Skagen's counsel agreed at argument that it did not matter whether the case was tried in the Northern District or in the District of Nevada.

The Court dismissed without prejudice Genender's tortious interference claim. Genender alleged that Skagen interfered with Genender's business relationship with customer Sears by copying Sears personnel on cease and desist letters. But the claim was deficient because Genender did not allege that it lost any Sears business because of Skagen's actions.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Integrated Genomics, Inc. Kyrsides, No. 06 C 6706, 2008 WL 63065 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2008) (Lefkow, J.).

Judge Lefkow dismissed defendant Ivanova for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, held that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over defendant Kyrsides, and denied defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims based upon preemption. Plaintiff alleged that defendants' breached their non-compete agreements and otherwise named plaintiff when defendants resigned from plaintiff, where they worked with genome software, and joined plaintiff's competitor in similar roles. Defendants each argued that plaintiff had not sufficiently pled diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff had not shown that $75,000 or more was in controversy. In response, plaintiff alleged that they lost customers to defendants' new employer after defendants resigned. But that was insufficient because plaintiff did not allege that defendants were responsible for, or the cause of, those lost customers. The Court, therefore, dismissed defendant Ivanova. But for Kyrisides, plaintiff also relied upon an email sent from Kyrsides to plaintiff's employees explaining Krysides's view that his resignation cost plaintiff a very large number of contracts. Kyrsides statements were sufficient proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The Court held that a motion to dismiss was not the appropriate vehicle for deciding the scope of the relevant non-compete agreements. The scope of a non-compete was fact-intensive and best determined after additional discovery.

Finally, the Court held that plaintiff's claims were not preempted by the Illinois Trade Secret Act ("ITSA"). While the claims could encompass trade secret information, they were based upon the broader category of confidential information. Because the claims were potentially broader than trade secrets, they were not preempted.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

United Image Print Group, LLC v. Mullen, No. 07 C 6720, 2008 WL 62205 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2008) (Kocoras, J.).

Judge Kocoras held that the Court lacked sufficient information to rule on preemption of plaintiff's Illinois Computer Tampering Act and breach of fiduciary duty claims by the Illinois Trade Secret Act. Both claims were based upon defendant's alleged misappropriation of allegedly confidential information before defendant resigned and took a position with a competitor. The Court reasoned that confidential information could include both trade secrets and protected information that did not rise to the level of trade secrets. Because information outside of the complaint was required to decide the scope of the claims, preemption could not be resolved in defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Eva’s Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enter., Inc., No. 07 C 1668, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2008) (Darrah, J.).*

Judge Darrah denied plaintiff’s (collectively “Eva’s Bridal”) motion to dismiss defendants’ (collectively “Halanick”) counterclaims, including Halanick’s claim for declaratory judgment that Eva’s Bridal abandoned its Eva’s Bridal mark.** Halanick’s allegations that Eva’s Bridal caused its mark to lose significance by “destroy[ing]” its good name and failing to stop Halanick’s use of the mark after the parties’ business relationship ended were sufficient to state a claim.

* Click here for a copy of the opinion.

** Halanick had non-IP claims related to the business relationship between the parties, but they will not be addressed here.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2007 WL 4287503 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2007) (Coar, J.).*

Judge Coar granted defendant Sandoz’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or in the alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff Abbott’s willfulness claims Abbott alleged that Sandoz willfully infringed Abbott’s patent related to an extended release antibiotic (clarithromycin, an erythromycin derivative which Abbott markets as Biaxin XL). At the time Sandoz entered the market with its generic version of Biaxin XL, the Federal Circuit had issued an opinion based upon an interlocutory appeal of a temporary restraining order, which included statements that Abbott’s patent was susceptible to invalidity and unenforceability argument. The Court held that Sandoz’s reliance on that opinion, regardless of the limited record it was based upon or its non-final nature was objectively reasonable, well above the In re Seagate objective recklessness standard.

* Click here for more on this case and related cases.

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

WMH Tool Group, Inc. v. Woodstock Int’l, Inc., No. 07 C 3885, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2007) (Darrah, J.).*

Judge Darrah denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff WMH Tool Group’s (“WMH”) Lanham Act dilution claim and its related Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“Consumer Fraud Act”) claim. WMH registered a trade dress for the color white on its woodworking and metal working products, sold under its JET brand. WMH alleged that its white trade dress was both famous and exclusively associated with WHM’s tools. WMH further alleged that defendant Woodstock International (“Woodstock”) diluted WMH’s trade dress by selling woodworking and metal working tools in WMH’s distinctive white color under Woodstock’s Shop Fox brand. Similarly, WMH alleged that defendant Grizzly Industrial (“Grizzly”) diluted WMH’s trade dress by selling woodworking and metal working tools in WMH’s distinctive white color under Grizzly’s Grizzly or Grizzly Industrial brands. 

Defendants argued that WMH did not state a claim for dilution because the complaint did not specify the date when WMH’s trade dress became famous and that defendants’ allegedly infringing sales began after that date. But the Court held that notice pleading did not require that WMH plead specific dates. It was enough that WMH pled that the trade dress had become famous and that defendants' infringement of the trade dress occurred after the fame was acquired.

Defendants also argued that WMH lacked standing to bring a Consumer Fraud Act claim because WMH was not a “person” or a “consumer” pursuant to the Act.  But the Court held that 815 ILCS 505/1(1)(c) defined “persons” to include business entities, and that a plaintiff need not be an actual consumer to bring a claim pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act.

* Click here for a copy of the opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mullen v. Society of Stage Directors & Choreographers, No. 06 C 6818, 2007 WL 2892654 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar granted in part defendant United Scenic Artists’ (“USA”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment (“DJ”) claims and denied all defendants’ motions seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ defamation claim. Plaintiffs are the various production heads of the Chicago production of the musical “Urinetown!” (“Chicago Production”). The Chicago Production was performed pursuant to a license from Blue Dog Entertainment, LLC. But despite that license, plaintiffs each received a cease and desist letter from counsel for defendants (the heads of production of the Broadway Urinetown! production (“Broadway Production”) and their unions USA and the Society of Stage Directors & Choreographers (“SSDC”). The letter warned that plaintiffs willfully copied copyrighted aspects of the Broadway Production and attempted to pass off the Chicago Production as the award-winning Broadway Production. Defendants demanded an accounting of revenues from the Chicago Production in order to calculate damages. Defendants also held a press conference during which they publicly stated that the plaintiffs “plagiarized” the Broadway Production. Plaintiffs responded by filing suit seeking declaratory judgments that the Chicago Production did not infringe any of plaintiffs’ copyrights and that it was not Lanham Act passing off. And based upon the press conference, plaintiffs included a defamation claim.

The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ copyright infringement DJ claim against USA because USA held no copyrights related to Urinetown! or the Broadway Production. So, USA could not have filed a copyright infringement action against plaintiffs. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs’ Lanham Act DJ claim against USA. While USA may have been able to show the generalized harm necessary for prudential standing based upon the alleged harm to its members who produced the Broadway Production, it could not show the specific injury required for Article III standing, because that alleged injury was to its members not USA.

The Court, however, denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding plaintiffs’ defamation claim. First, defamation claims do not trigger the Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading standards because they do not involve fraud or mistake. Second, defendants’ alleged wrongful accusation that plaintiffs plagiarized the Broadway Production is defamation per se because originality and integrity are core values of theatre:

It is beyond doubt that statements consisting of false accusations of plagiarism against professionals in industries where the measure of the quality of work centers on creativity, originality and integrity (i.e. – authors, journalists, artists, thespians, publishers, producers and directors of fine arts productions, etc.) are capable of imputing such persons lack ability or otherwise prejudice such persons in their professions.

Furthermore, the Court held that it was “absurd” to argue that “plagiarism” had an innocent meaning:

[Plagiarism] is not capable of any meaning that would not impugn Plaintiffs’ ability or not prejudice them in their profession.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Medallion Products, Inc. v. H.C.T.V., Inc., No. 06 C 2597, 2007 WL 3085913 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2007) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah dismissed defendant Broadcast Arts Group (“BAG”) for lack of personal jurisdiction, but held that the Court had personal jurisdiction over defendant ICC, Woodridge Specialty Products Corp. and an individual defendant (collectively “ICC Defendants”). Plaintiffs argued that BAG’s tortious acts against plaintiffs, all Illinois residents, created personal jurisdiction based upon the effects test doctrine. But the Court held that the alleged tortious acts against were not sufficient for jurisdiction because BAG was a Florida resident and all of its allegedly tortious acts were performed in Florida or Pennsylvania, at the request of non-Illinois residents. 

The alleged tortious acts of the ICC Defendants, however, did create personal jurisdiction pursuant to the effects test doctrine. The ICC Defendants allegedly entered an agreement to develop, market and sell a counterfeit pet-stain removal product that was packaged in bottles using plaintiff’s “Urine Gone” logo. The alleged acts and resulting injury would have occurred in Illinois.

The Court also held that plaintiffs met the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 pleading standards as clarified in Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ____ U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). So, the Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Aguila Records, Inc. v. Federico, No. 07 C 3993, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Lanham Act, copyright infringement and breach of contract complaint. Plaintiff, a music management and recording agency, alleged that it entered into an oral agreement with individual defendant Sergio Federico (“Federico”), a musician, giving plaintiff exclusive rights to Federico’s and his musical group Alacranes Musical’s (“Alacranes”) recordings. Shortly after agreeing to a ten-year extension of the agreement, plaintiff alleged that Federico quit the Alacranes and joined defendant musical group Aliados de la Sierra (“Sierra”). Plaintiff claimed that defendants infringed its scorpion trademark by using scorpion logos in their promotional material. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants violated plaintiff's copyright in the song “Por Tu Amor” – click here to watch the Alacranes’ music video on YouTube – by performing the song without authorization. Defendants argued that plaintiff failed to state its claims because several of plaintiff’s allegations were false, unsupported or otherwise incorrect. But the Court held that plaintiff had sufficiently pled its claims and that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was not the appropriate vehicle for evaluating the strength of the evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sotelo v. Suburban 171, Inc., No. 07 C 2447, 2007 WL 2570355 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Lanham Act unfair competition claim. Plaintiffs operated a salon called “Studio 171.” Defendants took over the location of plaintiffs’ salon and operated their own salon using all of the Studio 171 signage and marks. Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim should be dismissed because the Studio 171 mark was either descriptive or generic and plaintiff did not plead secondary meaning. But the Court held that the argument was premature. A plaintiff need not plead secondary meaning.* And furthermore, plaintiffs did plead secondary meaning, stating that the Studio 171 mark had developed “considerable value” and become “uniquely associated” with plaintiffs’ business. The Court did, however, dismiss plaintiffs’ RICO claim for failing to plead their fraud allegations with particularity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

* The Court did not cite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (read more about the decision at the University of Chicago Faculty Blog).  But based on other recent opinions citing Twombly for heightened pleading requirements, I wonder if plaintiffs at least should plead secondary meaning now.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tillman v. New Line Cinema, No. 05 C 910, 2007 WL 2323302 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2007) (Kennelly, J.)

Judge Kennelly denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, despite noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15A) requires that leave to amend be given “freely.” Plaintiff alleged that defendants collectively had access to his screen play “Kharisma Heart of Gold” about his experience with a sick child requiring heart surgery, stole it, produced it and released it as the movie “John Q.” Plaintiff filed his first complaint pro se alleging copyright infringement. Plaintiff then hired counsel and filed an amended complaint alleging copyright infringement and numerous other tort claims arising out of the alleged theft of plaintiff’s screen play. Various defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim regarding the non-copyright claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not respond to that complaint, but filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court* granted the motion to dismiss the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and the non-copyright claims against the remaining defendants. The Court also denied plaintiff leave to file its second amended complaint because it was futile. Plaintiff, again proceeding pro se, then sought leave to file a new second amended complaint. But the Court held that plaintiff’s current second amended complaint had no substantive changes from plaintiff’s original second amended complaint. The second amended complaint, therefore, was still futile. Additionally, the second amended complaint attempted to reassert claims against the individual defendants, who had been dismissed from the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the Court lacked personal jurisdiction, plaintiff could not draw the individual defendants back into the suit. 

* The case was originally before Judge Norberg, who decided the original motions to dismiss and motion for leave to file the second amended complaint, and has since been transferred to Judge Kennelly who heard this motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ace v. Marn, No. 06 C 5335, 2007 WL 1541747 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2007) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve granted in part and denied in part plaintiff/counterdefendant Ace Hardware Corp.'s ("Ace") Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendants/counter-plaintiffs' (collectively "Marn") counterclaims.  The Court denied the motion as to Marn's breach of contract claim and dismissed Marn's fraud and tortious interference claims.  Ace and Marn entered an agreement (the "Agreement") allowing Marn the right to use certain Ace trademarks and to purchase product for resale from Ace.  Marn alleged that Ace and its representatives breached the Agreement, made numerous misrepresentations leading up to the signing of the Agreement and failed to provide promised inventory.  Ace argued that Marn's breach of contract claim should be dismissed because it did not identify a specific provision of the Agreement that was breached, citing several Northern District cases.  But noted that each of Marn's cases came down before the Seventh Circuit's decision in Kolupa v. Roselle Park Dist., 438 F.3d 713, (7th Cir. 2006).  In Kolupa the Seventh Circuit explained the Rule 8(a)(2) requirements:

[i]t is enough to name the plaintiff and the defendant, state the nature of the grievance, and give a few tidbits (such as the date) that will let the defendant investigate. . . .  Any district judge (for that matter, any defendant) tempted to write "this complaint is deficient because it does not contain ..." should stop and think:  What rule of law requires a complaint to contain that allegation?  Any decision declaring "this complaint is deficient because it does not allege X" is a candidate for summary reversal, unless X is on the list in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Kolupa at 714-15 (emphasis in original).  Based upon the Kolupa decision the Court held that Marn was not required to cite a specific breached section of the Agreement.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ortho-Tain, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Inc., No. 05 C 6656, 2007 WL 1238917 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2007) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion to strike, dismissing without prejudice defendants' respective patent misuse affirmative defenses and all patent-related statements in defendants' counterclaims.  Plaintiff, Ortho-Tain ("OT"), sued Rocky Mountain Orthodontics ("RMO") and Planmeca Oy ("Planmeca") alleging that RMO breached the distributorship agreement between the OT and RMO.  Pursuant to the Agreement, OT manufactured dental appliances (allegedly covered by OT's patents) and RMO sold those appliances in France.  RMO allegedly breached the Agreement by sourcing equivalent dental appliances from Planmeca.  RMO counterclaimed for, among other things, declaratory judgment of noninfringement and unenforceability of OT's relevant United States patents.  The Court previously dismissed defendants' patent-related declaratory judgment counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  OT now argues that the Court should strike RMO's and Planmeca's respective patent misuse affirmative defenses because they are insufficient.  The Court first held that patent misuse was a proper affirmative defense, negating the first prong of a Rule 12(f) analysis. 

But neither RMO nor Planmeca met their Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 notice pleading obligations as to the defense.  RMO's and Planmeca's statement of their defenses were identical:  "[OT's] claims are barred by the doctrine of patent misuse."  The defense pled no facts and failed to identify which of OT's "many patents" were allegedly misused.  The Court, therefore, dismissed the affirmative defenses without prejudice.  And because the defenses were not well pled, the Court did not address the third prong of a Rule 12(f) analysis -- whether the defense could withstand a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  The Court also briefly looked at whether Rule 8 notice pleading or Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading was required for a patent misuse defense, noting that at least one court had used Rule 9(b) pleading, but did not reach the issue, as the defenses did not meet the Rule 8 standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fast Food Gourmet, Inc. v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., No. 05 C 6022, 2007 WL 1175577 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2007) (Aspen, J.).

Judge Aspen denied defendant Little Lady Foods, Inc.'s ("LLF") Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Fast Food Gourmet, Inc.'s ("FFGI") breach of contract claim.  FFGI alleged that FFGI entered a "co-packing" relationship with LLF, essentially that LLF was to manufacture FFGI's product.  Based upon that relationship, FFGI provided LLF with its various trade secrets relating to producing "a unique stone hearth oven thin crust frozen pizza."  In addition to its formulas, recipes, methods and techniques, FFGI also provided LLF its equipment.  FFGI alleged that, in addition to making pizzas for FFGI, LLG worked with defendant Kraft Foods Global, Inc. ("Kraft") to develop a line of pizzas using FFGI's trade secrets, with substantially the same crusts as the FFGI pizzas.  FFGI brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets against both defendants, breach of contract against LLF and unjust enrichment against Kraft.  LLF sought to dismiss FFGI's breach of contract claim to the extent it was based upon allegations that the agreement was breached by production of pizzas for Kraft with crusts nearly identical to FFGI's crusts.  LLF first argued that the agreement could not be breached because the agreement prohibits LLF from producing "pizzas with specification which are identical or . . . substantially identical to" the FFGI pizzas.  Because FFGI only pled that the crusts were identical or substantially identical, LLF argued the claim should be dismissed.  But the Court held that FFGI was only required to provide notice pleading of claims, not facts.  Because FFGI identified the parties, stated the nature of its dispute and provided "a few tidbits" LLF was sufficiently on notice.

LLF also argued that the claim should be dismissed because the FFGI and Kraft pizzas are substantially different because Kraft's sauce and/or toppings are very different than FFGI's.  But the Court refused to make factual determinations in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and denied LLF's motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 05 C 6561, 2007 WL 625496 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2007) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall denied plaintiff's, Abbott, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant's, Mylan, antitrust counterclaims.  Mylan alleged that two Abbott employees submitted declarations and/or testimony stating the weight and structure of certain oligomers related to the patented invention, despite their knowledge that the tests they relied upon were known to be incapable of measuring the oligomers at issue.  Mylan further alleged that based upon these fraudulent statements, the USPTO issued certain of the patents-in-suit which then prevented Mylan from entering the market with a generic version of Abbott's pharmaceutical Depakote.  Abbott relied upon a prior Northern District ruling against third party Torpharm which held that Abbott's conduct before the USPTO was not inequitable.  But the Court held that while that ruling prevented a sham litigation claim, it did not estop Mylan's inequitable conduct allegations because Mylan was not a party to the prior case and, therefore, had no opportunity to present its evidence and argument.  Additionally, the Court held that Mylan adequately alleged antitrust injury by stating that it prepared to enter the market with generic Depakote, but was prevented from doing so by Abbott's alleged inequitable conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gail Green Licensing & Design Ltd. v. Accord, Inc., No. 05 C 5303, 2006 WL 2873202 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2006) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve dismissed plaintiffs's Lanham Act false advertising claim, but refused to dismiss plaintiffs's breach of contract claim, among others.  Both claims are based upon defendants's receipt of plaintiffs's copyrighted designs for pet clothing and accessories pursuant to a Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement (the "NDA") and defendants's subsequent alleged sale of  goods based upon plaintiffs's copyrighted designs.

The Court dismissed the false advertising claim for lack of standing.  In order to bring a false advertising claim, plaintiffs must compete with defendants in the same business.  In this case, however, plaintiffs develop, acquire and license pet clothing and accessories, while defendants manufacture and/or sell pet clothing and accessories.  Because plaintiffs neither manufacture nor sell the pet clothing and accessories, they lacked standing to bring a false advertising claim against defendants.

Defendants also sought dismissal of plaintiffs's breach of contract claim.  Because the alleged breach was the use of plaintiffs's copyrighted designs, defendants argued that the claim was preempted by the copyright laws.  The Court denied defendants's motion for two reasons.  First, the Court held that contract claims are not within the general scope of the copyright laws because:

"A copyright is a right against the world.  Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not create 'exclusive rights.'"

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996).  Second, plaintiffs did not allege that defendants breached the NDA by infringing the copyright.  Rather, defendants allegedly breached the NDA by breaching their duty of confidentiality when they allegedly disclosed the copyrighted works, which could have been done without infringing any copyrights.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link