Dastar bars website trade dress claim that just repeats copyright allegations

Touchpoint Communications, LLC v. DentalFone, LLC, No.
15-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2015)
 
Touchpoint and DentalFone are Internet dental marketing
companies.  Touchpoint filed a
declaratory judgment action seeking a judgment of noninfringement of
DentalFone’s copyrights and trade dress/lack of protectable rights.  Touchpoint also alleged that DentalFone engaged
in unfair trade practices by attempting to unfairly remove competition from the
marketplace through its C&D letters, and also engaged in tortious
interference.  DentalFone responded with
the expected claims.
 
Here, the court gets rid of the non-copyright claims.  After incorporating its copyright allegations
by reference in its Lanham Act claim, DentalFone alleged that “[Plaintiff’s]
unauthorized use of a trade dress for its infringing mobile applications and
websites that is confusingly similar to the trade dress in the [Defendant’s]
Design constitutes trade dress infringement.” 
Beyond being a mere formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action, this was a specific problem in the trade dress infringement
context. 
 
A party claiming trade dress infringement “should clearly
articulate its claimed trade dress to give a defendant sufficient notice.”  An alleged “look and feel” that was “a unique
and proprietary home page design developed by [defendant] that embodies a
protectable trade dress” was just not enough. 
Though there might be cases in which a website trade dress claim could
be protectable, the allegations of the complaint provided no explanation of
what was being claimed other than an exact duplicate of the copyright
claim.  And exact duplication of the
copyright claim creates a Dastar problem.  (I’d say Dastar
here stands in for a constellation of arguments—realistically, if the
elements claimed as trade dress of the website are also the copyrighted work
plaintiff claims to own, I doubt they could function as a mark; this isn’t a
case of a distinct cartoon character allegedly being copied.)  If defendant “intends to maintain an Lanham
Act claim based on its website’s ‘look and feel,’ in addition to articulating
clearly the website features that comprise its alleged trade dress, [it] must
plead a ‘look and feel’ that does not fall under the purview of the Copyright
Act.”
 
Reading this might sound like an overextension of Dastar, but note defendant’s concession that not all double claims are Dastar-barred. The court’s conclusion makes a lot more sense when you look at the accusing and accused designs.  Here are several examples of DentalFone’s site designs:

Defendant contended that this was nothing more than standard “tiling” design.  Here are examples of the accused design–the first from Touchpoint’s website, the second from the threat letters from DentalFone:

 
NB: after examining these pictures, it would be surprising to me if the copyright claims had any more merit.  Even assuming a wafer-thin copyright in the selection, coordination and arrangement of menu items, I don’t see how infringing similarity could be shown.  (Also, I’d want to know more about who exactly owns the copyright in each individual website–having the mobile service provider do so seems like a risky business for the individual dental offices.  If they leave DentalFone, do they have to shut down their mobile sites?)
 
Unsurprisingly, the Dastar conclusion also proved fatal to the
state law claims.  Neither the Washington
Consumer Protection Act nor the common-law claims evaded preemption just by
alleging that there was an extra element of “deception or misrepresentation.”  That isn’t an extra element when the
deception allegedly comes just from the copying.  The gravamen of the action here was copying.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1ReOWaQ

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s