758 F.Supp.3d 1046
N.D. Cal.2024Background
- This case involves a trademark dispute over marks used for matchmaking/dating services in the “sugar daddy/sugar baby” space, brought between plaintiffs Clover8 Investments and Reflex Media, Inc. (RMI) and defendants SuccessfulMatch.com and Successful Match Canada.
- Defendants seek to cancel RMI’s trademark registrations on the grounds that the marks are generic.
- Both sides presented expert consumer surveys to address whether the marks are generic: Hal Poret (for defendants) and Brian Sowers (for plaintiffs).
- Each side moved to exclude the other’s expert opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 and Daubert, alleging unreliable methodologies.
- The court held a concurrent evidentiary hearing where the experts discussed their disagreements on survey design and methodology.
- The court denied both motions to exclude, finding both experts applied reliable principles and methodologies and that disputes go to weight, not admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of Survey Universe | Relevant universe is consumers of luxury/sugar dating | Should include broader online dating service consumers | Universe choice best addressed by factfinder; not grounds for exclusion |
| Appropriateness of Mini-Test and Controls | Defendant’s terms/controls are confusing/inadequate | Plaintiff’s controls bias results | Mini-test/control criticisms go to weight, not admissibility |
| Definitions of "Brand" and "Generic" for Respondents | “Term” vs. “name” distinction is misleading | Chosen definitions lead to misunderstanding | Minor differences or form over substance; both approaches acceptable |
| Whether Survey Measured Proper Construct (Genericness) | Defendant’s survey assessed wrong question | Plaintiff’s survey assessed secondary meaning | Both surveys relevant enough; criticisms address weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (test for reliability/admissibility of expert testimony)
- Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252 (survey defects generally go to weight, not admissibility)
- Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 618 F.3d 1025 (surveys need not be perfect to be admissible; weight assessed at trial)
- Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609 (survey universe disputes are normally for the factfinder)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549 (relevant public’s perception controls genericness in trademark cases)
- In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594 (genericness determined by how public uses/understands the term)