Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 11–12278–FDS. |
| Citation | 95 F.Supp.3d 184 |
| Parties | BERN UNLIMITED, INC., Plaintiff, v. The BURTON CORPORATION ; BRG Sports, Inc. ; Smith Sport Optics, Inc., d/b/a Smith Optics, Inc.; Vans, Inc.; Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Co.; and K–2 Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Andrew A. Caffrey, III, David S. Godkin, Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Hunter D. Keeton, Michael A. Albert, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, James M. Campbell, Robert L. Boston, Stephen I. Hansen, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Kate R. Isley, Pierce Atwood LLP, Michael J. Racette, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Christopher P. Flanagan, Wilson Elser, Boston, MA, Anne M. Readel, Christopher G. Hanewicz, Gabrielle E. Bina, Rodger K. Carreyn, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI, Robert H. Stier, Jr., Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, ME, Jeffery A. Key, Key & Associates, Chicago, IL, Lawrence D. Graham, Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a dispute alleging trade-dress infringement and unfair competition brought by a company that sells sports helmets. Plaintiff Bern Unlimited, Inc., has brought suit against six other makers of sports helmets. Bern contends that its helmets have a unique design, featuring a small visor and rounded shape. It further contends that the distinctive look of its helmets constitutes a protectable trade dress, and that defendants are manufacturing and selling confusingly similar helmets, thereby misleading the public. It seeks relief under both federal and state law.
Defendants Burton Corporation; BRG Sports, Inc. (formally known as Easton–Bell Sports, Inc.); Smith Sport Optics, Inc.; Vans, Inc.; Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Co.; and K–2 Corporation have brought counterclaims against Bern, contending that Bern's marketing of its helmets constitutes false advertising in violation of federal and state law. In particular, they contend that Bern falsely advertised the helmet as “patented,” when it knew that the patent was invalid. Defendants seek relief under both federal and state law.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the trade-dress and unfair competition claims. Plaintiff has also moved for summary judgment as to the counterclaims for false advertising. Both parties have also filed various motions to strike and exclude evidence. For the following reasons, summary judgment will be granted as to both sets of claims.
Bern Unlimited, Inc., is a manufacturer of helmets for biking, skating, snow, and water sports, based in Duxbury, Massachusetts. (. In January 2006, Bern began selling its Baker line of snow helmets. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 11).1
Bern contends that its helmets feature two distinctly identifiable elements: first, the “rounded profile of the helmet, which is designed to follow the shape of the wearer's head”; and second, “the distinctive visor.” (Id. ).
After the Baker helmet, Bern introduced other lines of helmets incorporating its trade dress. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 13; Hanewicz Decl. Ex. 1–8). Those lines included the Watts, Lenox and Muse line of helmets for adults, and the Bandito and Bandita youth helmets. .
The Burton Corporation is based in Burlington, Vermont. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 3). In January 2007, Burton introduced its Mutiny helmet as part of its Red brand at the SIA Snow Show. (Cook Decl. ¶ 3, Docket No. 261). In 2008, Burton released a youth model of the Mutiny under the name Defy. (Id. ¶ 4). It released a women's model named Asylum in 2012. (Id. ¶ 4). In October 2012, the Mutiny, Asylum, and Defy helmets were replaced by the Blitz, Aera, and Scout, respectively. (Id. ¶ 5).
BRG Sports, Inc., formerly Easton–Bell Sports, Inc., is based in Scotts Valley, California. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 2; Notice Change Party Name, Docket No. 193). In approximately August 2010, BRG began accepting orders for its Giro Surface helmet. (Carreyn Decl. Ex. 1, Docket No. 272–1). It first shipped the Giro Surface in September 2010. (Id. ). BRG started accepting orders for the Giro Surface S, the snow version of the helmet, in approximately November 2010. (Id. ). That helmet first shipped in approximately June 2011. (Id. ). The following year, BRG introduced the Vault, the youth version of the helmet. (Shapleigh Dep. 157, 162, Docket No. 324).
Smith Sport Optics, Inc. is based in Ketchum, Idaho. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 4). In January 2012, Smith introduced its Gage helmet at the SIA Snow Show. (Chilson Decl. ¶ 11, Docket Nos. 262, 290). Smith previously introduced its Variant and Hustle helmets with short brims and rounded profiles in January 2007 and January 2008, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 8).2
Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company is based in Ogden, Utah. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 5). Amer Sports began selling a helmet with a brim or visor in 2003 with the Crossmax model. (Key Decl. ¶ 4, Docket No. 277). In 2007, Amer Sports started marketing the Salomon Patrol and Salomon Poison helmets. (Id. ¶ 5; Key Decl. Ex. 4, Docket No. 277–4). Other models followed. (Key Decl. Ex. 4). Each of the Salomon helmets has a rounded profile and a visor. (Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21).
K2 Corporation is based in Seattle, Washington. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 8). In December 2006, K2 introduced its Rant helmet. (Steere Decl. ¶ 14, Docket No. 260). It began selling the Rant helmet to dealers in January 2007. (Id. ).
Vans, Inc. is based in Cypress, California. (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 6). Vans sells helmets known as the Pro–Tec Riot and the Pro–Tec Scandal. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 21). It began selling those helmets in January 2011 and August 2012, respectively. (Caffrey Decl. Ex. 73, Docket No. 360).
According to Bern, it launched a new line of helmets with the goal of creating a trade dress that would allow consumers to identify those helmets as Bern helmets, whether they had the Bern logo or not. (Bern 30(b)(6) Dep. by Godwin at 44–47, 54, Docket Nos. 254–2, 334–8). The Bern Baker was the first of a line of helmets that had a rounded profile and a distinctive visor. That helmet received great interest when it was first shown at trade shows. (Id. at 480–82). In January 2006, Seth Wescott of the United States won a gold medal in snowboarding at the Winter Olympics wearing a Bern Baker helmet. (Id. at 425). The day after Wescott's performance, the number of visitors to Bern's website was approximately 9,800, as compared to an average of 120 per day before. (Id. at 466–67).
From 2006 to 2010, “Bern experienced compounded annual growth of approximately 45 [percent] in total revenues from all products, and approximately 46 [percent] compounded annual growth in revenues from brim-style helmets.” (Pl.'s SMF Opp. Vans' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 39, Docket No. 254–1 (citing Floyd Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 254–9)). Over that five-year period, Bern's sales-unit volume grew at a rate of 39 percent annually for all products and 38 percent annually for brim-style helmets. (Id. ¶ 40 (citing Floyd Decl. ¶ 2)). Between its launch and March 2014, Bern has sold 726,826 brim-style helmets in 47 countries worldwide. . Those sales have produced total revenues of $22 million. .
Bern has spent more than $1 million advertising, marketing, and promoting its helmets. (Godwin Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, Docket No. 254–10). Bern has submitted what it refers to as “a representative sample of ... advertisements featuring the Bern Baker and other brimmed Bern helmets.” (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. 2, Docket Nos. 254–10, 254–11). Bern has sponsored at least 50 professional athletes who have worn its helmets at “highly-publicized professional athletic events.” (Pl.'s SMF Opp. Vans' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 43 (citing Godwin Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3, Docket No. 254–11)). Bern contends that those athletes chose to wear its helmets because of their distinctive style. (Cook Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 67–6; Sporastoyl Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 67–7). Articles published in the Boston Globe, Entrepreneur, Backpacker, Stuff, Vogue, Wired, Mens Fitness, Powder, Skiing, TransWorld Snowboarding, Gala Style, Fri Flyt, TransWorld Business, SickLines.com, and BikeBiz have profiled Bern's helmets. (Godwin Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 4). In addition, celebrities have been pictured wearing Bern helmets, other companies have included the helmets in their own promotional materials, and the helmets were featured in the movie Premium Rush. (Godwin Decl. ¶¶ 7–9; Godwin Decl. Ex. 5, Docket No. 254–12; Godwin Decl. Ex. 6, Docket No. 254–12).
Bern submitted declarations from Christopher Mitchell, David Sadr, Christian Denis, Robert Shaw, and Ryan Montani in opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment.3 Mitchell, Sadr, Denis, Shaw, and Montani are all Bern customers; three are retailers and two are consumers. Bern submitted the declarations in support of its contention that customers have come to associate the distinctive appearance of the brimmed helmets with Bern.
Mitchell is a buyer at Brave New World Surf and Snow, a retailer of surf and snow equipment in Point Pleasant, New Jersey. (Mitchell Decl. ¶ 1, Docket No. 244). In his declaration, he stated that he first heard about Bern helmets in or around 2006, and that he remembers (Id. ¶ 2). He also stated that he “associated the distinctive appearance of the Bern brim-style helmets with Bern....” (Id. ¶ 3).
Sadr was a buyer for backcountry.com, an online retailer of outdoor recreational equipment. (Sadr Decl. ¶ 2, D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smartling, Inc. v. Skawa Innovation Ltd.
...primary significance of [it] is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.’ " Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 95 F.Supp.3d 184, 205–06 (D. Mass. 2015) (quoting Wal-Mart, 529 U.S. at 211, 120 S.Ct. 1339 ). Smartling's claimed secondary meaning must be judged ......
-
AU New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp.
...deliberate deception, which creates a rebuttable presumption of consumer confusion."); see also Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 95 F. Supp. 3d 184, 215 (D. Mass. 2015) (denying summary judgment on false advertising claim involving similarly misleading statements regarding patent owner......
-
Sharkninja Operating LLC v. Dyson Inc.
...compete, such that defendant's profits would have gone to plaintiff if there was no violation." See Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 95 F. Supp. 3d 184, 217-18 (D. Mass 2015) (quoting HipSaver Co., Inc. v. J.T. Posey Co., 497 F. Supp. 2d 96, 106 (D. Mass. 2007)). In Fishman Transducers......
-
Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Rtic Coolers, LLC
...focus on the YETI name, and is thus outside the scope of secondary meaning. Dkt. No. 258-4 at 91-92. See Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 95 F. Supp. 3d 184, 209 (D. Mass. 2015). YETI argues that Golder's failure to consider the evidence of advertising expenditures and sales undermines......