Tag: Unfair Competition

Branding, Copyright, Entertainment, Influencer Marketing, Trademarks, Unfair Competition

Kardashian YouTube Video of Office Furniture Prompts Lawsuit Against Celeb & Interior Designer

How Can Designers Protect Their Intellectual Property?

Interior Design and knockoff furniture made headlines in a recent New York Times article, most likely due to the celebrity attached to the controversy. The complaint filed by the Judd Foundation against interior design firm Clements Design, Inc. and the designer’s client, Kim Kardashian, alleges claims for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and false endorsement related to the sale and promotion of allegedly knockoff Donald Judd designed furniture.

Filed in California, the Judd Foundation brings its unfair competition claims primarily under 15 USC 1125(a) based upon Clements Design’s and Kardashian’s use of alleged Judd Design knock-off, publicized on Kardashian’s YouTube channel in August 2022.

For more information about this lawsuit, please check out this Business of Home podcast in which I’m honored to be mentioned. That podcast is available here.

Designers take note: the Judd Foundation (in-artfully) alleges the Designer’s use of a photograph of a Judd-designed table in the Designer’s proposal to Kardashian is copyright infringement leading to unfair competition.

Contact Us Today

We have more than 25 years of experience representing clients in state and federal courts, and in the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

Adler Law Group is located in Chicago, Illinois, but serves clients throughout the United States including New York, as well as international clients.

Reach out today for all your trademark, copyright, licensing, litigation and business issues.

Advertising, Branding, Certification Marks, Content Development, Creative Content, Entrepreneurs, Infringement, Litigation, Marekitng, Small Business, Technology, Trademarks, Uncategorized

Trending @ The Trademark Office: Bona Fide Intent

Nintendo of America HQ headquarters
Image via Wikipedia

Recent Decisions Highlight Need For Objective Evidence of Intent to Use Mark

Two recent decisions at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) indicate what may be an emerging trend in Trademark practice: challenges based on lack of evidence of a “bona fide” intent to use a mark for which a Section 2(b) Intent-to-Use (ITU) application has been filed. The two relevant decisions are Kaplan v. Brady and Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Adar Golad.

Every ITU Applicant makes a legal averment, under oath, that it has a “bona fide” intent to use the mark in commerce. “To show a bona fide intent to use, there must be ‘objective evidence,’ that is evidence in the form of ‘real life facts and by the actions of the applicant.’ J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Sec. 19:14 (4th ed. 2009). There should be some ‘definite’ (if not necessarily ‘concrete’) plan by applicant. For example, ‘written plan of action for a new product or service,’ or a ‘re-branding of an existing line of goods or services.’ Id.”  In the two cited cases, lack of such definite evidence proved fatal.

The first decision is a Cancellation action where one party (Kaplan) sought to have the registration of another party (Brady)  cancelled. Kaplan’s claim for cancellation of Brady’s FUNNY-FACE mark was based on the existence of Kaplan’s ITU application for the mark FUNNY FACE FIZZY BLAST!  Although the parties exchanged several motions, of interest here is the Board’s determination that Kaplan lacked standing to prosecute the cancellation because Kaplan had “produced no documentation supporting his alleged bona fide intent to use such mark other than a “completely phony” and undated business plan that is merely a “slightly altered version” of a business plan for use of the mark BAKE OFF! on a “cleansing product.”

The second decision is an Opposition proceeding where one party (Nintendo) sought to prevent the registration of another party’s (Golad) mark by opposing the application.  Golad filed an ITU application to register the mark FLASHBOY for “plug and play interactive video games … comprised of computer hardware and software.” Nintendo opposed the registration on the ground that FLASHBOY is likely to cause confusion with its Registration for the mark GAMEBOY for game equipment, etc.

During discovery, Golad admitted that he did not have a business plan or any other documentation reflecting plans to “advertise, manufacture or otherwise use the mark FLASHBOY in commerce on the goods for which applicant seeks registration.” That was enough to establish a lack of bona fide intent.

Summary: Practice Tip

Both applicants and trademark counsel need to be aware of the requirement that an ITU application be supported by at least some definite evidence of the applicant’s bona fide intent to use the mark. While it remains unclear whether  a business plan alone is sufficient to meet this burden, an applicant must be able to produce some type of evidence, through documents or testimony, indicating plans to advertise, manufacture, distribute, license or otherwise use the mark.