Readers of the blog know that the CAR FRESHNER people, owners of the mark consisting of the product configuration of a tree-shaped air freshener,  know where the court is located, having sued various third parties selling tree-shaped fresheners.  It has now sued Getty Images, owners of one of the larger stock photo agencies.  Getty maintained at least 11 images in its inventory that depicted a tree-shaped air freshener.  Car Freshner sued on multiple counts, including trademark infringement.  Getty moved to dismiss the trademark count, arguing that it was not using the mark as a trademark, and if it was, such use was either nominative or descriptive fair use.

The interesting part of the discussion begins in the NDNY decision below on page 11.  The Court held that plaintiff plausibly alleged that photos that depict the freshener (of which the one above is attached to the complaint as illustrative exhibit) are arguably trademark use of the freshener, and may possibly not be either nominative or descriptive fair use.   I note that the 11 photos attached to the complaint vary in their treatment of the fresheners, as some ‘incidentally’ depict the freshener within a photo as above, while others could be deemed to be ‘beauty shots’ depicting the freshener alone.

Given that Getty has 80 million images, it may have some agita that its fair use defense did not defeat a 12(b)(6) motion, given that perhaps some others of its 80 million photos that may depict recognizable trademarks as well.  Some may not be sad about that.

 Decision Tree Freshner Getty(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

 

 

We use MyEmma for our email blasts, fwiw.  Emma, an email/communications company sues Microstrategy for releasing EMMA, what it describes as a ‘mobile marketplace’ app.

 Complaint Emma v Micro Strategy(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Plaintiff owns registrations for TIMELINES for “Providing a web site that gives users the ability to create customized web pages featuring user-defined information about historical, current and upcoming events; and application service provider, namely, managing web sites of others in the fields of historical, current and upcoming events.” Plaintiff alleges Facebook infringes its mark with its new TIMELINE service, and that FB interfered with plaintiff’s FB page.

 Complaint Timelines Facebook(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

The Foreign Candy Company, Inc. is a marketer of innovative international confectioners.  It owns registrations for ‘skeletal marks’, used for lollipops with skeletal arms and legs as sticks (specimen above).   It alleges that Bee International infringes its skeletal marks.

 Complaint Skeletal Candy(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

I think that for some types of companies, such as those in consumer electronics, the decision to file for a ‘dot brand’ TLD may not be that difficult.  If consumers are performing a lot of their pre-purchase research online, and are even purchasing online (think DVRs and cameras), then even a small amount of diversion, lawful or unlawful, by typo-sites, adwords, grey goods, etc., can add up to significant lost sales.  The possibility of improved SEO and the creation of a ‘trusted’ distribution network may well pay for the TLD.   I’m not surprised that CANON and HITACHI are among the early brand owners who have indicated their intention to file for TLDs.

The decision for a brand owner whose product line is not quite as consumer-facing, is a little more problematic.  I was talking to a client at a  Fortune 500 company that is primarily B2B and whose marketing department is not quite as sold on the TLD opportunity.  The in-house lawyer asked what are other companies like his doing?  He suggested that there be some means for in-house counsel to share comments and experiences on the new gTLDs.

OK,  tell you what.  You can use the comment field here, or email me and I’ll anonymze your comments.  I hope you’ll contribute on the following:

1.  What are the strongest arguments within your company for applying for a new gTLD?

2.  What are the strongest arguments against?

3.  Is your company contemplating an ‘open’ registry where your customers may utilize domain names reflecting your brand, or a ‘closed’ registry where your company owns all second level domain names?

Also, here’s a new info site ICANN has created for the process.