Americana Manhasset v. Caruso Mgmt. Co.
| Citation | 718 F.Supp.2d 292 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 08-384.,CV 08-384. |
| Parties | FIFTH AVENUE OF LONG ISLAND REALTY ASSOCIATES d/b/a/ Americana Manhasset, Plaintiff, v. CARUSO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LTD., d/b/a/ Caruso Affiliates, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Bracewill & Giuliani, by John C. Rawls, Esq., Valyncia Simmons, Esq., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, by Jeffrey A. Conciatori, Esq., Debra Brown, Esq., Michael Carlinsky, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This action was commenced by Plaintiff Fifth Avenue of Long Island Realty Associates d/b/a/ Americana Manhasset (“Plaintiff” or “Fifth Avenue”) alleging: (1) trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (2) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) violation of the Anticybersquatting and Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (4) trademark dilution in violation of Section 360- l of the New York State General Business Law; (5) violation of New York State General Business Law §§ 349 and 350; (6) common law trademark infringement and, (7) unjust enrichment. Named as Defendant is Caruso Management Company, Ltd. d/b/a/ Caruso Affiliated d/b/a/ Caruso Affiliates (“Defendant” or “Caruso”).
Plaintiff operates a shopping center located in Manhasset, New York known as the “Americana at Manhasset.” Defendant operates a large mixed use residential and shopping area in Glendale, California, known the “Americana at Brand.” At the core of all of Plaintiff's claims is Defendant's use of its name, which incorporates the word “Americana.” In addition to denying Plaintiff's claims, Defendant asserts counterclaims seeking cancellation of Plaintiff's “Americana” registered mark based upon allegations of abandonment, and fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Defendant also seeks an order directing the Patent and Trademark Office to refuse to register Plaintiff's pending trademark application, which seeks to broaden the ways in which Plaintiff may use the Americana name.
A non-jury trial of all claims was held before this court. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and legal memoranda. The court has considered those submissions and this constitutes the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In summary, and for the reasons set forth below, the court holds in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff's claims, but denies Defendant's request for prevailing party fees.
1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, with its principle place of business in Manhasset, New York.
2. Plaintiff is the landlord, and operates a shopping center located on Northern Boulevard in Manhasset, New York.
3. Frank Castagna, while not a party hereto, is a principle in the Plaintiff company. Castagna is also a principle in a company known as Castagna Realty, which provides management services to the Plaintiff company.
4. Defendant is a limited partnership headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
5. Defendant operates a mixed use residential and shopping center, located near Brand Boulevard in Glendale California, known as the “Americana at Brand.”
6. Rick Caruso, while not a party hereto, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant company.
7. Plaintiff has operated its business at the same location in Manhasset, New York since 1956.
8. The Americana at Manhasset shopping center houses approximately 60 retail stores, and two restaurants.
9. The stores at the Americana at Manhasset shopping center are overwhelmingly luxury stores, catering to the more affluent consumer. Such stores include Tiffany, Gucci, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Hermes, Cartier, and Bottega Veneta.
10. While other stores at the Americana Manhasset are not considered to be “luxury” stores, Plaintiffs themselves characterize these stores as “high end.” Such stores include Brooks Brothers, Cole Haan, Coach, and Juicy Couture.
11. The smallest category of stores at the Americana Manhasset are those that cater to a slightly lower price point consumer, such as The Gap and Banana Republic.
12. Consumers targeted by Plaintiff's management are those with home values in excess of $2 million, and households with annual incomes in excess of $250,000.
13. The Americana at Manhasset is not a destination for tourists from around the world. Instead, the vast majority of consumers shopping at the Americana at Manhasset are from the immediate Long Island community or the New York City area.
14. Plaintiff's marketing efforts are directed primarily to local consumers.
15. Plaintiff publishes a catalogue three times a year which is distributed locally and to select consumers in affluent parts of Florida.
16. Plaintiff advertises in nationally distributed magazines, but those advertisements are aimed primarily at local New York and select Florida market subscribers to those magazines.
17. The Americana at Manhasset does not have any residential units, a movie theater or public parks. Nor does the Americana at Manhasset host any large scale events open to the public, such as holiday celebrations.
18. Plaintiff has never expanded its business beyond the Manhasset location. Instead, it has maintained that business in the same location, with the same overall square footage.
19. There is no evidence that Plaintiff has ever taken any steps to expand its business to the State of California.
B. Defendant's Business
20. The Americana at Brand is located in Glendale, California.
21. The Americana at Brand is a 2.2 million square foot development that is aptly referred to by Defendant as a “town center development” or a “lifestyle center.”
22. In addition to 64 retail shops and 18 restaurants and cafes, the Americana at Brand contains, within the development, over 330 residential units, a movie theater, and a public park.
23. The Americana at Brand encompasses approximately fifteen acres of land, with a two acre park, open to the public, at its center.
24. Also present at The Americana at Brand are approximately twenty street vendor carts selling consumer items and refreshments.
25. The Americana at Brand development also includes two swimming pools, a spa, and a gym.
26. The two acre public park at the center of the Americana at Brand includes a public playground, and a water feature that operates as a choreographed dancing water display.
27. The Americana at Brand hosts a variety of family-themed outdoor events throughout the year, including puppet shows, arts and crafts sales, a farmers' market, and a large scale Christmas Tree lighting ceremony and celebration.
28. There was strong evidence, and the court concludes, that local individuals visit the Americana at Brand to partake in various outdoor activities that may or may not include shopping.
29. The distance between the Americana Manhasset, and the Americana at Brand is approximately 3,000 miles.
30. While there were some overlapping stores at the parties' centers, the court finds the differences between the centers to be overwhelming.
31. Aside from the parties' use of the common word “Americana,” in the names of their centers, the great differences between the parties' centers greatly outweigh any minor similarities.
32. The facts that both Americana Manhasset, and Americana at Brand are located in “open air” settings, i.e., not within enclosed mall settings, and have a limited number of common tenants, are of no significance to the issue of similarity, given the extraordinary differences between the centers.
33. Measured by square footage alone, the Americana at Manhasset is vastly different, as it is much smaller than the Americana at Brand.
34. While the Americana at Manhasset is a small strip development housing primarily luxury stores, the Americana at Brand is a large scale, family-centered community center.
35. The Americana Manhasset is marketed as a luxury shopping destination.
36. The Americana at Brand is marketed as a residential, family entertainment, and shopping destination.
37. The Americana Manhasset is not a residential community, and cannot be characterized as a family entertainment destination.
38. The physical layout of the parties' centers is very different. While the Americana Manhasset is located in a strip-style setting on one street in Manhasset, New York, the Americana at Brand is a self-contained community covering an area of approximately four city blocks.
39. There is no evidence of any overlap in consumers between the parties' centers. Americana at Manhasset markets to and attracts primarily consumers who are local to the New York area, while the Americana at Brand markets to and attracts consumers from its neighboring California communities.
40. The fact that national print or website advertising may expose consumers nationwide to advertisements for stores found at both Americana Manhasset and the Americana at Brand is of no importance. Evidence that a California tourist might find himself shopping at Americana Manhasset while vacationing in New York, or that a New York tourist might find himself shopping, or attending an event at the Americana at Brand, is equally of no relevance.
41. A California consumer exposed to a national print or website advertisement for a shopping center is not in the same market targeted by a shopping center advertisements viewed by New York consumers.
42. There is no overlap in the parties' target audience or consumers.
43. The parties are not in direct competition for buyers from the same market.
44. There is no evidence that either party intends to enter the market of the other.
45. In sum, the court finds, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Auto. Serv. Providers of N.J.
...its use with the intent to not resume use in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Fifth Ave. of Long Island Realty Assocs. v. Caruso Mgmt. Co., 718 F.Supp.2d 292, 306 (E.D.N.Y.2010); see also ITC Ltd., 482 F.3d at 147 (“The party asserting abandonment bears the burden of persuasion with r......
-
Haggar Int'l Corp. v. United Co. For Food Indus. Corp.
...including laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, are applicable.” 2115 U.S.C. § 1115(b). See Fifth Ave. of Long Island Realty Assocs. v. Caruso Mgmt., 718 F.Supp.2d 292 (E.D.N.Y.2010). “If one of the defenses is established, registration constitutes only prima facie and not conclusive evidence......
- On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capital One Serv. Llc.
-
Faram 1957 S. P.A. v. Faram Holding & Furniture, Inc.
...asserting abandonment, and "requires clear andconvincing evidence of intent to abandon." Fifth Ave. of Long Island Realty Assocs. v. Caruso Mgmt. Co., 718 F. Supp. 2d 292, 306 (E.D.N.Y 2010). 2. Application Defendants move for summary judgment as to their ownership of the Faram Trademarks o......