925 F. Supp. 2d 1067
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Fleischer Studios, Inc. sues A.V.E.L.A., Inc. for Betty Boop IP claims after Ninth Circuit remand.
- Ninth Circuit vacated parts of the district court ruling and remanded for “further proceedings” on the Betty Boop word mark claim.
- Plaintiff asserts ownership of Betty Boop copyrights/trademarks; Defendants license and sell Betty Boop merchandise using posters/images.
- Prior district court rulings found no valid copyright or trademark in Betty Boop and granted summary judgment for Defendants on key claims.
- Current court limits remand proceedings to unexplained aspects of the prior rulings and to evidence already presented; does not revisit resolved copyright/trademark issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants' Betty Boop word mark use is a trademark use | Fleischer asserts use infringing as a mark in commerce. | Defendants' uses are not trademark uses; decorative/aesthetic in nature. | Not a trademark use; use is either aesthetically functional or fair use. |
| Whether Defendants' use is aesthetically functional | Word mark serves as source identification; not merely decorative. | Use serves decorative/character-name purpose, not source indication. | Defendants' use is aesthetically functional and not a protectable trademark use. |
| Whether Defendants' use is protected as fair use | Defendants misuse cannot be fair use. | Use is descriptive, in good faith, and not a source identifier; fair use applies. | Defendants' use is fair use or non-trademark use; not infringing. |
| Whether there is a triable likelihood of confusion | Word/image use could confuse consumers as to source. | No source-identifying use; no likelihood of confusion. | No triable likelihood of confusion. |
| Scope of remand and permissible arguments | Remand allows relitigation of the word mark claim with new evidence. | Remand limited to unexplained prior rulings and evidence already in record. | Proceedings limited to re-examination of unexplained rulings; no reinvestigation of resolved issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1992) (trademark/unfair competition analysis for ownership, use, likelihood of confusion)
- Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 618 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2010) (descriptive fair use and trademark analysis; 'descriptive purity' concept)
- Aur-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) (two-step test for aesthetic functionality; utilitarian vs. aesthetic function)
- International Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 633 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1980) (aesthetically functional trademark doctrine; functional use not protected as trademark)
- Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1998) (likelihood of confusion framework; standard circuit authority)
- AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (eight-factor Sleekcraft test for likelihood of confusion)
- Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1990) (legal equivalents concept in confusion analysis; word vs. image marks)