Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton
Citation | 189 F.3d 868 |
Decision Date | 23 August 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-55810,98-55810 |
Parties | (9th Cir. 1999) AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. JERRY SUMPTON, Individually d/b/a Free View Listings Ltd.; FREE VIEW LISTINGS, LTD., an Unknown Entity, Defendants-Counter-Claimants- Appellants |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] G. Gervaise Davis, III, Davis & Schroeder, Monterey, California, for the defendants-counter-claimants-appellants.
Adrian Mary Pruetz (Argued), and David W. Quinto (On the Briefs), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding. D.C> No. CV-97-00407-JSL.
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Sumpton and Freeview Listings Ltd. (together, "Appellants") appeal an injunction in favor of Avery Dennison Corp., entered after summary judgment for Avery Dennison on its claims of trademark dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. S 1125(c) (Supp. II 1996) (Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. SS 1051-1127 (1994)) the , and the California dilution statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code S 14330 (West 1987). The district court published an opinion, 999 F. Supp. 1337 (C.D. Cal. 1998), holding that Appellants' maintenance of domain name registrations for
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291 (1994). Because Avery Dennison failed to create a genuine issue of fact on required elements of the dilution cause of action, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Appellants and to consider Appellants' request for attorneys' fees in light of this decision.
We are the third panel of this court in just over a year faced with the challenging task of applying centuries-old trademark law to the newest medium of communication -- the Internet. (See Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), and Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).) Although we attempt to set out the background facts as clearly as possible, the interested reader may wish to review some of the following sources for a more complete understanding of the Internet: Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1044-45; Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227, 1230-32 (N.D. Ill. 1996); and Marshall Leaffer, Domain Names, Globalization and Internet Commerce, 6 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 139, 139-46 (1998).
Two communicative functions of the Internet are relevant to this appeal: the capacity to support web sites and the corollary capacity to support electronic mail ("e-mail"). A web site, which is simply an interactive presentation of data which a user accesses by dialing into the host computer, can be cre- ated by any user who reserves an Internet location -- called an Internet protocol address -- and does the necessary programming. Because an Internet protocol address is a string of integer numbers separated by periods, for example, <129.137.84.101>, for ease of recall and use a user relies on a "domain-name combination" to reach a given web site. The registrar of Internet domain names, Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"),1 maintains a database of registrations and translates entered domain-name combinations into Internet protocol addresses. When accessing a web site, a user enters the character string
A web site can be programmed for multiple purposes. Some merchants maintain a form of "electronic catalog" on the Internet, permitting Internet users to review products and services for sale. A web site can also be programmed for email, where the provider licenses e-mail addresses in the format
Sumpton is the president of Freeview, an Internet e-mail provider doing business as "Mailbank." Mailbank offers "vanity" e-mail addresses to users for an initial fee of $19.95 and $4.95 per year thereafter, and has registered thousands of domain-name combinations for this purpose. Most SLDs that Mailbank has registered are common surnames, although some represent hobbies, careers, pets, sports interests, favorite music, and the like. One category of SLDs is titled "Rude" and includes lewd SLDs, and another category, titled "Business," includes some common trademark SLDs. Mailbank's TLDs consist mainly of <.net>; and <.org>, but some registered domain name combinations, including most in the "Business" and "Rude" categories, use the TLD <.com>. Mailbank's surname archives include the domain-name combinations and .
Avery Dennison sells office products and industrial fasteners under the registered trademarks "Avery" and "Dennison," respectively. "Avery" has been in continuous use since the 1930s and registered since 1963, and "Dennison" has been in continuous use since the late 1800s and registered since 1908. Avery Dennison spends more than $5 million per year advertising its products, including those marketed under the separate "Avery" and "Dennison" trademarks, and the company boasts in the neighborhood of $3 billion in sales of all of its trademarks annually. No evidence indicates what percentage of these dollar figures apply to the "Avery" or "Dennison" trademarks. Avery Dennison maintains a commercial presence on the Internet, marketing its products at and , and maintaining registrations for several other domain-name combinations, all using the TLD <.com>.
Avery Dennison sued Appellants, alleging trademark dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act and California Business and Professional Code S 14330. Avery Dennison also sued NSI, alleging contributory dilution and contributory infringement. The district court granted summary judgment to NSI on Avery Dennison's claims. The district court then concluded as a matter of law that the disputed trademarks were famous and denied summary judgment to Appellants and granted summary judgment to Avery Dennison on its dilution claims, entering an injunction requiring Appellants to transfer the registrations to Avery Dennison. 983 F. Supp. at 1342.
Trademark protection is "the law's recognition of the psychological function of symbols." Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203, 205 (1942). Two goals of trademark law are reflected in the federal scheme. On the one hand, the law seeks to protect consumers who have formed particular associations with a mark. On the other hand, trademark law seeks to protect the investment in a mark made by the owner. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 163-64 (1995).
Until recently, federal law provided protection only against infringement of a registered trademark, or the unregistered trademark analog, unfair competition. See SS 32 & 43(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. SS 1114, 1125(a) (1994). These causes of action require a plaintiff to prove that the defendant is using a mark confusingly similar to a valid, protectable trademark of the plaintiff's. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1046.
Many states, however, have long recognized another cause of action designed to protect trademarks: trademark dilution. Lori Krafte-Jacobs, Comment, Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 , 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 659, 660-62 (1998) ( ). With the 1995 enactment of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, dilution became a federal-law concern. Unlike infringement and unfair competition laws, in a dilution case competition between the parties and a likelihood of confusion are not required to present a claim for relief. See 15 U.S.C. S 1127 (Supp. II 1996) (definition of "dilution"); Leslie F. Brown, Note, Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 247, 249 (1999). Rather, injunctive relief is available under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act if a plaintiff can establish that (1) its mark is famous; (2) the defendant is making commercial use of the mark in commerce; (3) the defendant's use began after the plaintiff's mark became famous; and (4) the defendant's use presents a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive value of the mark. Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998) (15 U.S.C. S 1125(c)(1)) .
California's dilution cause of action is substantially similar, providing relief if the plaintiff can demonstrate a "[l]ikelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark . . ....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Wright
...with the mark. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 163-64, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995); Avery Dennison, 189 F.3d at 873. Liability for trademark or service mark infringement occurs when a person "use[s] in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colora......
-
Stone Brewing Co. v. Millercoors LLC
...marks with such powerful consumer associations that even non-competing uses can impinge on their value." Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton , 189 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 1999). It "refers to the ‘whittling away of the value of a trademark’ when it's used to identify different products." Mattel......
-
Cottonwood Financial Ltd. v. the Cash Store Financial Serv. Inc.
...of confusion in infringement analysis disposed of confusion requirement for dilution analysis). But see Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 879 (9th Cir.1999) (opining, prior to the TDRA, that “likelihood of confusion should not be considered under either the [FTDA]” or Californi......
-
Hbp, Inc. v. American Marine Holdings, Inc.
...U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). Incontestability alone is not sufficient to render a mark "famous" for dilution purposes. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 1999). The mark must have a degree of distinctiveness and strength beyond that needed to serve as a trademark; it must ......
-
Intellectual property
...Quality Under California law, a cause of action for trademark dilution protects only famous trademarks. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F. 3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 1999) (the trademarks “Avery” and “Dennison” used by seller of office products were not “famous,” and thus were not entitled ......
-
The trademark dilution revision act of 2006: prospective changes to dilution definition, claim analyses, and standard of harm.
...Cir. 1998) (discussing the breadth of dilution law and the intention to protect only famous marks). (31.) Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting dilution actions "tread very close to granting 'rights in gross"' in trademarks) (citations (32.) WELKOWITZ, s......
-
Evidence at the electronic frontier: introducing e-mail at trial in commercial litigation.
...v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). (2.) Id. at 832. (3.) See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 872 (9th Cir. 1999); Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (C.D. Cal. (4.) See JULIAN S. MILLSTEIN, ET AL., DOING BUSINESS......
-
Protecting your corporate client's most valuable intangible asset: its name.
...1997 WL 829341,45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1463 (C.D. Cal. 1997). (57.) 985 F. Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal. 1997), aff'd, 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999). (58.) 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999). (59.) See, e.g., Playboy Enters. Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 55 F.Supp.2d 1070 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (motion for prelim......