831 F. Supp. 2d 705
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- QSG operates Blue Martini restaurants and owns a trademark for the Blue Martini name and logo; its trade dress is claimed to be distinctive.
- Defendants operate Newburgh and Middletown Blue Martini venues and are not part of QSG’s chain; several individuals hold licenses and domain names advertising these venues.
- QSG’s logo trademark is the 726 mark, with a disclaimer that protection does not extend to Blue Martini apart from the shown mark.
- QSG sought a word mark for Blue Martini (the 058 mark) in 2007 based on five-year substantially exclusive use; the '058 registration was granted.
- Defendants counterclaimed to cancel the 058 mark on grounds of registration symbol misuse, fraud in the PTO application, and confusing similarity to the existing Bigg Blue Martini mark; QSG moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first counterclaim fails for lack of proof of intentional symbol misuse | QSG did not intend to deceive; symbol referenced the logo only | QSG deliberately used the symbol to mislead the PTO/public | Counterclaim dismissed |
| Whether the second counterclaim for fraud in obtaining the 058 mark survives | No fraudulent intent or material misstatement; five-year use supports distinctiveness | Statements contradicted earlier descriptions of descriptiveness and expansion plans | Counterclaim dismissed |
| Whether the third counterclaim alleging confusing similarity with Bigg Blue Martini supports cancellation | There is potential confusion affecting standing and likelihood of confusion | PTO could have denied registration due to similarity; standing shown | Third counterclaim denied on motion; standing and likelihood-of-confusion issues require factual inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Copelands’ Enters., Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (improper use of a registration notice requires evidence of intentional deception)
- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) (descriptive to distinctive analysis for marks)
- In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (use in determining distinctiveness may consider future marketing plans)
- Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (descriptive terms may gain distinctiveness after five years of use)
- Nikon, Inc. v. Ikon Corp., 803 F.Supp.910 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (similarity considerations in PTO denial proceedings)
- L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil Inc., 192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (fraud in procuring a trademark requires intentional misrepresentation of a material fact)
- Orient Express Trading Co. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 842 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1988) (material misstatement required to prove fraud in trademark registration)
- Courtenay Commc’ns Corp. v. Hall, 334 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2003) (likelihood of confusion is a fact-intensive inquiry not suitable for dismissal)
- Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co., Ltd., 412 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 2005) (Polaroid factors guide confusion analyses)