Int'L Bancorp v. Societe Des Bains De Mer
Decision Date | 19 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-1364.,02-1364. |
Citation | 329 F.3d 359 |
Parties | INTERNATIONAL BANCORP, LLC; International Services, Incorporated; International Lotteries, LLC; Las Vegas Sportsbook, Incorporated; Britannia Finance Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOCIETE DES BAINS DE MER ET DU CERCLE DES ETRANGERS A MONACO, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Anthony James DeGidio, Jr., Toledo, Ohio, for Appellants. George Reynolds Hedges, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, L.L.P., Los Angeles, California, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
James W. Pravel, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Gregory P. Barbee, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, L.L.P., Los Angeles, California; Carl J. Nichols, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge LUTTIG wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER joined. Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ wrote the dissenting opinion.
Plaintiff companies appeal from the district court's summary judgment that their registration and use of forty-three domain addresses infringe a foreign corporation's rights under the Lanham Act and violate the Anticybersquatting Act, where the foreign corporation advertised its trademark domestically, but only rendered services under it abroad. We conclude that the district court's judgment, although not its reasoning, was correct, and therefore affirm.
Appellee, Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco ("SBM"), owns and operates historic properties in Monte Carlo, Monaco, including resort and casino facilities. One of its properties, a casino, has operated under the "Casino de Monte Carlo" trademark since 1863. The mark is registered in Monaco, but not in the United States. SBM promotes this casino, along with its other properties, around the world. For 18 years, SBM has promoted its properties from a New York office staffed with four employees. SBM's promotions within the United States, funded with $1 million annually, include trade show participation, advertising campaigns, charity partnerships, direct mail solicitation, telephone marketing, and solicitation of media coverage.
Appellants, the plaintiff companies, are five companies formed and controlled by a French national, which operate more than 150 web sites devoted to online gambling. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term "Casino de Monte Carlo."1 These web sites, along with the gambling software they employ, also exhibit pictures of the Casino de Monte Carlo's exterior and interior, contain renderings that are strikingly similar to the Casino de Monte Carlo's interior, and make allusion to the geographic location of Monte Carlo, implying that they offer online gambling as an alternative to their Monaco-based casino, though they operate no such facility.
When SBM learned of the plaintiff companies' web sites and their uses of the "Casino de Monte Carlo" mark, it challenged them in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). A WIPO panel ruled against the plaintiff companies and ordered the transfer of the 53 domain addresses to SBM. To escape this judgment, the plaintiff companies brought suit in federal court against SBM seeking declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), that they are entitled to the disputed domain names. SBM counterclaimed under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1111 et seq.) for trademark infringement under section 1125(a);2 trademark dilution under section 1125(c); cybersquatting under section 1125(d)(1); and unfair competition in violation of section 1126(h). The district court ruled against SBM on its section 1125(c) trademark dilution claim, because SBM had not shown actual economic harm, and on its section 1126(h) unfair competition claim. But the court ruled in favor of SBM on its trademark infringement claim and on its cybersquatting claim, awarding SBM $51,000 in statutory damages and transfer of 43 of the 53 contested domain addresses.3 The plaintiff companies now appeal from that adverse judgment.
Although the district court decided this case on motions for summary judgment, factual determinations underlay its ultimate ruling (e.g., findings as to likelihood of confusion and secondary meaning). The plaintiff companies contend that the court exceeded its summary judgment authority by resolving such questions of fact. Two factors present in this case justify the judicial posture taken by the court, however. First, the parties, having prepared for a bench trial, agreed to submit the voluminous record to the court for dispositive decision at the time of the summary judgment motions, see J.A. at 1002-03 .
Secondly, the court's disposition of the case was consistent with the fact that the parties did not contradict one another's proffered facts, but only disputed the inferences that a fact finder would draw from those underlying facts. With the parties' voluntary submission of the record, comprised of only uncontroverted proffers, before it, and being en route to a bench trial anyway, the court properly proceeded to judgment in the case. Cf. Matter of Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394, 398 (5th Cir.1991) ( .
Because the court decided the case on summary judgment motions, we review its legal determinations de novo, see Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 928 (4th Cir. 1995). But since it also engaged in fact-finding to dispose of the matter, we review its findings of fact for clear error. See, e.g., Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum, Inc., 130 F.3d 88, 91-92 (4th Cir.1997) (); RFE Industries, Inc. v. SPM Corp., 105 F.3d 923, 925 (4th Cir. 1997) ().4
The plaintiff companies first challenge the district court's determination that their use of 43 domain addresses violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act, infringing on SBM's trademark. Central to their challenge is the claim that SBM did not have a protectable interest in the "Casino de Monte Carlo" mark, a prerequisite to SBM's ability to claim against the plaintiff companies under the Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) ( ); see also Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., 43 F.3d at 930 ( ).
This circuit requires that an unregistered trademark satisfy two requirements if its owner is to have a protectable interest in the trademark: The mark must be used in commerce, see 15 U.S.C. § 1051 ( ); see also Larsen v. Terk Technologies Corp., 151 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir.1998) (), and it must be distinctive, see Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 464 (4th Cir.1996) ( ). The plaintiff companies argue that the district court erred in concluding that SBM met these two requirements. We address both arguments in turn.
Both parties have agreed, in their briefs and at oral argument, that the critical question in assessing whether SBM "used its mark in commerce" is whether the services SBM provided under the "Casino de Monte Carlo" mark were rendered in commerce. As shown below, the Lanham Act's plain language makes this conclusion unavoidable and the parties' agreement unsurprising.
We must first contend with a threshold matter, however. This circuit has never directly addressed the scope of the term "commerce" within the Lanham Act. Because of the clarity of the Act's own definition of the term, see 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ( ), we now hold that "commerce" under the Act is coterminous with that commerce that Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The other circuits to address this question have concluded the same. See, e.g., United We Stand America, Inc. v. United We Stand, America, NY, Inc., 128 F.3d 86, 92-93 (2nd Cir. 1997); Planetary Motion v. Techsplosion, 261 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir.2001). Of course, Article I of the Constitution provides that,
[t]he Congress shall have Power ... to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Consequently, "commerce" under the Lanham Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cottonwood Financial Ltd. v. the Cash Store Financial Serv. Inc.
...of services and the services are rendered in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127; see, e.g., Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 373 (4th Cir.2003) (recognizing “the two distinct aspects of the statutory ‘use in commerce’ requirement” an......
-
Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.
...the Court's prior conclusion.48 PROLACTO also cites the Fourth Circuit's decision in International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco , 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1106, 124 S.Ct. 1052, 157 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004), claiming that ......
-
Pizzuto v. Yordy
...in the text accompanying note 15, the comparable practice under federal procedure); Int’l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco , 329 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2003) ; Matter of Placid Oil Co. , 932 F.2d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 1991) ; Fox v. Johnson & Wimsat......
-
Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos v. Virgin Enterprises
...intellectual property protections under the Lanham Act are entitled to "great weight." Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 378 (4th Cir.2003); see also In re Dr. Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 510 (Fed.Cir. 1987) ("While the interpret......
-
Hot Topics In Trademark Law 2015
...services are rendered. Id. at 1381-82; accord International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Estrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 361-66 (4th Cir. 2003) (reaching the same conclusion in the context of a litigation action); Sensient Techs. Corp. v. Sensory Effects Flav......
-
Hot Topics In Trademark Law 2015 Series: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Intent To Use Part 2
...services are rendered. Id. at 1381-82; accord International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Estrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 361-66 (4th Cir. 2003) (reaching the same conclusion in the context of a litigation action); Sensient Techs. Corp. v. Sensory Effects Flav......
-
Statute Of Limitations Under The Anti-Cybersquatting Statute: A Very Limited Limitation
...488 (E.D. Va. 2002), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Estrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. However, the Sixth Circuit and courts within the Third and Seventh Circuits disagree. The Sixth Circuit found a statute of limitat......
-
Mindy Pava, the Cuban Conundrum: Proposing an International Trademark Registry for Well-known Foreign Marks
...among U.S. consumers.8 The court determined that, evenInt’l Bancorp LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 381 (4th Cir. 2003).Id. at 361.Id.Id.Id.Id. at 385 (“Until today, every court to address this issue has held that use of a foreign trademark......
-
Constitutional law - foreign commerce clause sucks the life from Dracula through giving restitution to foreign sex trafficking victims.
...in a case discussing trade regulations. Id. (citing Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2003)); Sex Crimes, supra note 19, at 2612 (describing FCC as one of few clauses still open for (36.) Boston, 818 F.3d at 667 (expla......
-
Parochialism and pluralism in cyberspace regulation.
...Act unless it is accompanied by any actual rendering of services in the United States). But see Int'l Bancorp v. Societe des Bains de Mer, 329 F.3d 359, 355-56 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that the provision of services abroad to U.S. residents in conjunction with advertising in the United Stat......
-
Standing Still: Denial of Certiorari in Belmora Llc v. Bayer Consumer Care Ag Leaves Question on Standing for Foreign Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Claims
...Cir. 2016) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1127).29. Id. (citing Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3)).30. Id. at 709, n.6.31. Pet. for Writ of Certiorari, Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consu......