Eastland Music Grp., LLC v. Lionsgate Entm't, Inc., 12–2928.
Decision Date | 18 March 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 12–2928.,12–2928. |
Citation | 707 F.3d 869 |
Parties | EASTLAND MUSIC GROUP, LLC, and Raynarldo Whitty, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. LIONSGATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; Summit Entertainment, LLC; and Mandate Pictures, LLC, Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ronald A. DiCerbo, Gerald C. Willis (argued), Attorney, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Tom J. Ferber (argued), Attorney, Pryor Cashman, New York, NY, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Eastland Music Group is the proprietor of the rap duo Phifty–50, which, according to its web site www. phifty– 50. com, has to its credit one album (2003) and a T-shirt. Eastland Music has registered “PHIFTY–50” as a trademark. It also claims a trademark in “50/50” and contends that Lionsgate Entertainment and Summit Entertainment infringed its rights by using “50/50” as the title of a motion picture that opened in 2011.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), ruling the movie's title descriptive because the film concerns a 50% chance of the main character surviving cancer. 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 100310 (N.D.Ill. July 19, 2012). Eastland Music protests that this is a defense, not an element of the claim, and that because the movie is not part of the complaint the motion to dismiss should have been handled as one for summary judgment. See Rule 12(d). Eastland Music tells us that, had the complaint survived a motion to dismiss, it would have served extensive discovery requests, and it seems confident that defendants would have settled rather than borne the expense of compliance. Counsel was surprised when reminded, at oral argument, that a motion for summary judgment can precede discovery (see Rule 56(b), allowing a motionto be filed “at any time”), leaving the adverse party with an obligation to show a need for discovery under Rule 56(d). See Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.2012) ( ).
Whether a document to which a complaint refers (here, the movie) is treated as part of the complaint for the purpose of Rule 12(d) has been a difficult question, see Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690–91 (7th Cir.2012), but one we need not tackle. Nor need we decide whether to follow Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir.1989), under which the title of an artistic work can infringe a trademark only if it is devoid of artistic significance or explicitly misleading about the work's source. Rogers treated that doctrine as an application of the first amendment rather than the Lanham Act, and courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication.
It is unnecessary to consider possible constitutional defenses to trademark enforcement, just as it is unnecessary to decide whether the district court should have converted the motion to one for summary judgment, because this complaint fails at the threshold: it does not allege that the use of “50/50” as a title has caused any confusion about the film's source—and any such allegation would be too implausible to support costly litigation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that not a single person has ever contacted Eastland or its web site to seek a copy of the film or complain about the film's contents or quality. Nor does the complaint allege that any potential customer has turned to Lionsgate or Summit in quest of the rap duo's products. Counsel for plaintiffs also told us that no survey has been done.
If the accused film bore the title “Phifty–50”, allegations of confusion or secondary meaning could be omitted from the complaint. Eastland Music's registered mark has become incontestable, 15 U.S.C. § 1065, though incontestable marks are subject to certain defenses. 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The title “50/50” differs from the mark “Phifty–50”, however; only the latter is registered—and the principal reason it was registr able is that it is a made-up homophone of a familiar phrase, which in ordinary usage is suggestive or descriptive. It takes a powerful showing of association between such an expression and a particular producer of goods to establish a trademark claim—and Eastland Music has not attempted such a showing.
The phrase 50/50 or a sound-alike variant (50-50, fifty-fifty, fifty/fifty) has been in use as the title of intellectual property for a long time. Wikipedia lists eight films...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heckler & Koch, Inc. v. German Sport Guns GmbH
...have entered the market to capitalize on the familiarity or cachet of a pre-existing design.49 Cf. Eastland Music Group, LLC v. Lionsgate Entm't, Inc., 707 F.3d 869, 871 (7th Cir.2013) (observing that a plaintiff was “a very junior user and in no position to complain .... [Plaintiff] entere......
-
Eagle Forum, an Ill. Not-For-Profit Corp. v. Phyllis Schlafly's Am. Eagles, Not-For-Profit Corp.
...this Circuit on the issue, and it is unnecessary to rule through the prism of constitutional law. See Eastland Music Group, LLC v. Lionsgate Ent., Inc. , 707 F.3d 869, 871 (7th Cir. 2013) ("... courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication").As an initial matter, PSAE claims t......
-
Phx. Entm't Partners, LLC v. Rumsey
...copyrights.” Id. at 34, 123 S.Ct. at 2048 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). See Eastland Music Grp., LLC v. Lionsgate Entm't, Inc. , 707 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Dastar held that trademark law cannot be used to obtain rights over the content of an artistic work; that w......
-
Holbrook MFG LLC v. Rhyno Mfg. Inc.
...and TORX PLUS®—in addition to identical website content and images from Defendants’ website. See Eastland Music Grp., LLC v. Lionsgate Entm't, Inc. , 707 F.3d 869, 871 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting that if the defendant's work bore the same name as the plaintiff's, "allegations of confusion ... c......
-
Motions To Dismiss In Meritless Trademark Infringement Claims: When To Roll The Dice?
...Broad. Co., 86 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended (Aug. 6, 1996). 9. Eastland Music Group, LLC v. Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc., 707 F.3d 869, 871-872 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Eastland Music's complaint does not (and could not plausibly) allege that consumers treat it as the producer or sou......