Ga. Pac. Consumer Prod.S v. Von Drehle Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-1942,09-2054.,09-1942 |
| Citation | 618 F.3d 441 |
| Parties | GEORGIA PACIFIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.VON DREHLE CORPORATION, a North Carolina corporation, Defendant-Appellee.Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Von Drehle Corporation, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
ARGUED: Stephen Patrick Demm, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Albert P. Allan, Allan Law Firm, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Thomas G. Slater, Jr., John Gary Maynard, III, George P. Sibley, III, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Mark G. Arnold, Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Stephen L. Curry, North Little Rock, Arkansas; Michael P. Thomas, Patrick Harper & Dixon, LLP, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Before KEENAN, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and SAMUEL G. WILSON, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part by published opinion. Senior Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge KEENAN and Judge WILSON joined. Judge WILSON wrote a separate opinion concurring specially.
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP (G-P), successor-in-interest to Georgia Pacific Corporation, is a leading designer/manufacturer of inter alia, paper products and dispensers for such products for the home and the away-from-home setting ( e.g., hotels, stadiums, restaurants, etc). This case implicates two related products first introduced by G-P in October 2002-the touchless paper towel dispenser ( Dispenser) and paper toweling with a high-quality fabric-like feel designed specifically for use in and problem-free operation of Dispensers ( Toweling). Although G-P actually sells Toweling to janitorial supply distributors, who, in turn sell it to their respective end-user customers ( e.g., hotels, stadiums, restaurants, etc.), G-P only leases Dispensers to such distributors, who, in turn, are permitted to sublease them to their respective end-user customers. The leases and subleases expressly provide that only Toweling can be used in Dispensers and stickers on the inside of Dispensers reinforce the limitation.
The face of every Dispenser bears four registered trademarks owned by G-P- , , , and or . Collectively, we refer to the first three of these trademarks as “the G-P Marks,” which are the three trademarks at issue on appeal.
On July 8, 2005, after one of G-P's competitors, von Drehle Corporation (VD), started marketing and selling to distributors an inferior paper toweling specifically manufactured by VD for use in Dispensers, G-P brought the present civil action against VD, alleging the following four causes of action at issue on appeal: (1) unfair competition in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) contributory trademark infringement in violation of § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (3) unfair competition in violation of North Carolina common law; and (4) tortious interference with contractual relationships in violation of North Carolina common law.1 VD counterclaimed for violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NC UDTPA), N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. Ultimately, on cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to all of G-P's claims, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of VD. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of G-P with respect to VD's counterclaim.
G-P now appeals the district court's summary judgment ruling with respect to its four claims set forth above, and VD cross-appeals the district court's summary judgment ruling with respect to its single counterclaim. For reasons that follow, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of VD with respect to G-P's claims for contributory trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under North Carolina common law, and tortious interference with contract under North Carolina common law, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of G-P with respect to VD's counterclaim under the NC UDTPA.
In analyzing de novo whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of VD, we view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to G-P, as the nonmoving party. Garofolo v. Donald B. Heslep Assocs., Inc., 405 F.3d 194, 198 (4th Cir.2005). G-P's claims are based upon the following facts.
For many years, G-P has designed, manufactured, and sold what those in the paper towel dispenser industry call “universal dispensers.” Other companies, including VD, also design, manufacture, and sell universal dispensers. Universal dispensers accept and are intended to accept paper toweling from multiple manufacturers. However, with the introduction of Dispensers, G-P sought to introduce a non-universal dispenser tied directly to the G-P Marks- i.e., one that G-P intended would only operate with, and one in which the restroom visitor would expect to dispense, Toweling. In this way, G-P sought to create a branded-dispenser situation akin to a branded Coca-Cola ® soda fountain dispenser, which the user expects to dispense only genuine Coca-Cola ® products.
Turning to the specifics of Dispensers, they dispense a pre-measured amount of paper toweling upon activation of an electronic motion sensor, without the user having to touch the dispenser in any manner, thus providing a hygienic experience superior to that of a manual paper towel dispenser otherwise requiring the user to touch the dispenser. At the time of their introduction in October 2002, Dispensers were the only electronic, hands-free, paper towel dispensers available in the marketplace.
G-P invented the high-end Dispenser with the intent that it would operate with only non-standard, ten-inch Toweling, which toweling has a soft-fabric like feel created by using a through-air-dried (TAD) process. Although the packaging of Toweling bears the G-P marks, Toweling itself bears no source identifying marks. To reinforce G-P's desire to create a branded dispenser situation akin to the Coca-Cola ® soda fountain dispenser, every Dispenser bears a sticker-notice inside of it stating that such dispenser “is the property of Georgia-Pacific” and “may be used only to dispense the trademark-bearing products identified on its exterior.” (J.A. 36). Although G-P uses its mark only with Dispensers,2 it uses the marks and on many of its other products, such as Brawny ® paper towels and Quilted Northern ® toilet paper. Notably, VD does not dispute that Dispensers have been an extremely successful product for G-P and that many commercial facilities in the United States have installed Dispensers.
G-P leases Dispensers to distributors via a pre-printed lease agreement furnished by G-P. Such lease agreement grants a distributor permission to sublease Dispensers “to the end-user customers that shall be approved by G-P....” (J.A. 1086). A typical example of this supply chain is when G-P leases Dispensers to a distributor, who in turn subleases them to a hotel operator for use in the hotel's public restrooms. Notably, although G-P argues that it is a party to the subleases between distributors and the end-user customers ( i.e., the sublessees), the record does not support such a finding.
Also to reinforce its desire to create a branded dispenser situation akin to the Coca-Cola ® soda fountain dispenser, the lease agreements between G-P and its distributors provided that Dispensers would remain the property of G-P and that “only G-P branded towels ... shall be used in” Dispensers-the “[u]se of other unauthorized product(s) is strictly prohibited.” Id. Moreover, the lease agreements provided, in relevant part:
VD is a corporation organized under the laws of North Carolina, with its principal place of business in Hickory, North Carolina. Like G-P, VD manufactures paper towel products for the away-from-home market. With one exception not relevant to this appeal, VD sells its products throughout the continental United States to janitorial supply distributors who, in turn, sell to end-user customers such as hotels and restaurants. Notably, although VD actually sells its products to distributors, it directly markets its products to end-user customers via its sales personnel either by themselves or in conjunction with the sales personnel of distributors making in-person sales calls on such customers to encourage them to purchase VD products from the distributors. Brothers Raymond von Drehle and Steven von Drehle, who each hold a fifty-percent stake in VD, run the company, with Raymond serving as VD's chairman and Steven as its president.
By 2004, VD knew about and its sales personnel had inspected Dispensers. Then, in July 2004, VD specifically developed a ten-inch toweling for use in Dispensers (VD's 810-B Toweling). Notably, VD's 810-B Toweling is of a lower quality than Toweling, with a slick, scratchy feel. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napco, Inc. v. Landmark Tech. A, LLC
...2002).7 By contrast, claims under the UDTPA may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ga. Pacific Consumer Prods., LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441, 457 (4th Cir. 2010). This standard is not articulated within the UDTPA but rather reflects the default standard applied to civ......
-
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.
...inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to [Rosetta Stone], as the nonmoving party.” Georgia Pac. Consumer Prods., LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441, 445 (4th Cir.2010). Bearing this standard in mind, we review the underlying facts briefly. Rosetta Stone began in 1992 as a small......
-
Bros. of the Wheel M.C. Exec. Council, Inc. v. Mollohan
...has properly registered it under the Lanham Act, and is entitled to its exclusive use in commerce. Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441, 452 (4th Cir.2010) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Therefore, under 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a), “registration creat......
-
Pbm Products Llc v. Mead Johnson & Co.
...facts and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Mead Johnson. Georgia Pacific Consumer Products v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441, 445 (4th Cir.2010). Summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and PBM is entitled to ju......
-
Copyright and Trademark Misuse
...openly, and transparently.” 217 Although Von Drehle’s claim was unsuccessful, the 214. Georgia Pac. Consumer Prods. v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441 (4th Cir. 2010). 215. Id. at 445. 216. Id. at 457. 217. Id. In a companion case, Georgia Pac. Consumer Prods. v. Myers Supply , 621 F.3d 771 ......
-
Living with the Merchandising Right (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Free-Riding Stories).
...achieving the status of owning the genuine article at a knockoff price."). (191) Id. (192) Au-Tomotive Gold, 457 F.3d at 1077-78. (193) 618 F.3d 441 (4th Cir. (194) One need not bring a materiality requirement to trademark law to assess the sophistication of the relevant consumer class typi......