Vox Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer
50 F. Supp. 3d 355
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Vox Amplification Ltd., Korg Inc., and Korg USA sue Meussdorffer and Phantom Guitar Works seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and cancellation of Meussdorffer's trademark registrations for Phantom and Teardrop marks and guitar designs.
- Defendants move for a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and the Lanham Act to enjoin Plaintiffs’ use of their Phantom and Teardrop marks on guitars.
- Court referred matter to magistrate for R&R; Plaintiffs later moved to dismiss Counterclaim and sought to supplement the record with a post-R&R consumer survey.
- Defendants assert ownership and policing of four marks (Phantom word, Teardrop word, Phantom Body Shape, Teardrop Body Shape) and alleged prior rights and goodwill dating to 1993.
- Plaintiffs produced 1998, 2007, 2012 Apache, and 2013 ukulele instruments challenging Defendants’ marks; Defendants contended these instruments infringe the Phantom/Teardrop marks and trade dress.
- Magistrate Judge Brown recommended denying preliminary injunction as to Teardrop marks and ukuleles but granting as to Phantom marks; Court adopted R&R in full and denied Plaintiffs’ motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants’ First Amended Counterclaim states plausible claims | Plaintiffs argue Counterclaim fails under Rule 12(b)(6) (laches, lack of infringement, no trade dress claim). | Defendants argue Counterclaim pleads valid trademark and unfair competition claims with plausible infringement and confusion. | Counterclaims survive; pleadings deemed plausible. |
| Whether laches defeats the counterclaims | Laches bars claims due to delay since 1998 over marks. | Cease and desist letters and ongoing negotiations rebut laches; alleged intentional acts negate laches defense. | Laches not a bar; not applicable given cease letters and active negotiations. |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ use of Phantom/Teardrop marks and designs constitutes actionable infringement | Defendants must show proper use and likelihood of confusion; Plaintiffs’ uses do not infringe. | Defendants show valid marks and likelihood of confusion; Polaroid factors support likelihood of confusion. | Defendants likely to prove infringement and unfair competition; claims survive dismissal. |
| Whether Defendants adequately pled unregistered trade dress and unfair competition | Trade dress claim lacks proper pleading; unfair competition insufficient without bad faith. | Trade dress is a registered mark; unfair competition exists with bad-faith-like allegations. | Claims adequately pled; bad-faith element addressed and sufficient for survival. |
| Whether the record should be supplemented with a consumer survey for the injunction | Survey post-R&R supports no confusion; should be admitted. | Survey not properly time-stamped; insufficient basis to supplement; record denial appropriate. | Motion to supplement denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (concrete pleading required; legal conclusions unsupported)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1961) (Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion)
- Samara Bros., Inc. v. Hoyt, 529 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2000) (designs require secondary meaning for protectable trade dress when unregistered)
- L'Oreal USA, Inc. v. Trend Beauty Corp., 2013 WL 4400532 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (false designation of origin standards aligned with trademark infringement)
- Haggar Int'l Corp. v. United Co. for Food Indus. Corp., 906 F. Supp. 2d 96 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (six-year fraud statute of limitations and laches considerations)
- Conopco, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 95 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.1996) (Lanham Act defenses and pleading standards)
- Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers & Distributors, Inc., 996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.1993) (trade dress/protectable rights framework)