Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Coyne
141 F. Supp. 3d 813
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Slep-Tone sues Coyne, Mondo, Yackley, Garcia, and Seidman for unauthorized use/display of Sound Choice marks under the Lanham Act and IDTPA.
- Defendants counter with fraud-based, antitrust, and tortious interference counterclaims targeting Slep-Tone’s marks and actions.
- Court denied motion to dismiss; cross-motions for summary judgment and three ancillary motions were fully briefed.
- Slep-Tone seeks summary judgment on its claims and on counterclaims; Defendants seek partial summary judgment on cancellation counterclaims.
- The court analyzes validity of the service marks, likelihood of confusion, and the antitrust/tortious interference counterclaims, and addresses related Rule 56.1 compliance and sanctions issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Sound Choice service marks | Slep-Tone claims 2011 marks were properly registered | Defendants contest fraud/validity of 2011 marks | Counterclaims I, III–V denied; no summary judgment on validity resolved here |
| Direct or indirect use in commerce of service marks | Marks used in commerce directly or through related GEM licensees | No direct use in commerce; control over licensees is insufficient | Issues unresolved; no summary judgment for either side on indirect/direct use |
| Likelihood of confusion | Display of Sound Choice marks on unauthorized tracks creates confusion | Differences in products, markets, and consumer perceptions negate likelihood of confusion | Summary judgment denied; issue for jury; likelihood-of-confusion fact-intensive |
| Antitrust and tortious interference counterclaims | Defendants’ claims lack evidentiary support; actions privileged to protect marks | Slep-Tone conspired to restrain trade and interfere with contracts | Antitrust and tortious interference counterclaims granted in part/denied in part; into- the-merits to the jury; sanctions motion denied without prejudice |
| Robinson-Patman price discrimination | Pricing schemes within licensing programs may harm competition | Pricing differences do not fit Robinson-Patman categories or prove injury to competition | Counterclaim for Robinson-Patman denied; no price-discrimination violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Phila., 923 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1990) (service/trademark distinctions similar standards for infringement)
- In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (fraud elements in USPTO registration must be intentional)
- Eva’s Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enters., Inc., 639 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2011) (control/quality in related-case licensing; use in commerce)
- CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2001) (multifactor test for likelihood of confusion; area of concurrent use)
- Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., 546 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2006) (price discrimination and injury to competition framework)
- AM Gen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2002) (intent to palm off and unfair competition considerations)
- Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 763 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2014) (factors for likelihood of confusion; emphasis on fact-intensive nature)
- Dynegy Mktg. & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2011) (categories of competitive injury under Robinson-Patman)