Using generic art that may evoke plaintiff is fair

Sturgis Motorcycle
Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc, 2016 WL 3282197, No. 11-5052
(D.S.D. Jun. 10, 2016)
This case has
occasionally shown up in my Westclip, but this time I’m writing about it
because the court set forth specific designs that the defendants were allowed
to use as descriptive fair use. 
Previously, the defendants were preliminarily enjoined from using
plaintiff SMRI’s STURGIS word mark, STURGIS BIKE WEEK, BLACK HILLS MOTOR
CLASSIC STURGIS RALLY & RACES BLACK HILLS S.D., STURGIS MOTORCYCLE RALLY,
STURGIS RALLY & RACES, or any colorable imitations (also covering
dilution).  They were also enjoined from
using “Officially Licensed Sturgis,” “Authentic Sturgis,” “Legendary Sturgis,”
“Licensed Sturgis,” “Official Sturgis,” “Sturgis Central,” “Sturgis Motor
Classic,” and “Sturgis Rally” in any confusing way, and from using various
domain names such as AuthenticSturgis.com, Legendary-Sturgis.com, LicensedSturgis.com,
OfficialSturgis.com, SturgisCentral.com, SturgisMotorClassic.com, or SturgisRallyOnline.com.
 

I believe this is an example of infringing merchandise
SMRI’s registered
and common law trademarks were specifically limited to the motorcycle rally
event held annually in Sturgis, South Dakota.  Thus, defendants were allowed to use “the name
Sturgis or other phrases which contain the name Sturgis in the distribution,
marketing and sale of non-rally-related Sturgis, South Dakota, products.”  Since they were preliminarily enjoined
against infringement, the defendants had a heavier burden of showing they’d
avoided a colorable imitation or dilution than a non-enjoined party.  (How do you show non-dilution? Also, how on
earth is this a famous mark among the general consuming public?)  An adjudicated infringer must keep a safe
distance from the protected mark.
The court considered
several groups of symbols/art.  First,
“Legendary South Dakota” (versus the enjoined “Legendary Sturgis”).  The moving defendants argued that their use
now referred to the Wild West.  The court
found that Sturgis was prehistorically and historically important enough, as
indicated by numerous volumes of history “dedicated to Sturgis and its environs
having nothing to do with the Sturgis Rally,” to make Sturgis “legendary” without
reference to the Rally.  Thus, SMRI had
no right to block non-rally-related “Legendary Sturgis” or “Legendary Sturgis,
South Dakota.”
Next: “Sturgis,
South Dakota.”  SMRI argued that the
defendants shouldn’t be able to remove “Sturgis Motor Classic” and use
“Sturgis, South Dakota” on the very same, or nearly identical, designs they previously
sold as “rally merchandise,” since SMRI’s rights covered STURGIS on motorcycle
rally-related goods.  SMRI also objected
to the use of “Sturgis” in a font much larger than “South Dakota.”  SMRI wanted any “Sturgis, South Dakota”
product to “add some non-rally related indicia,” because the geographical term,
standing alone, wasn’t at a safe distance. 
Further, SMRI argued that use of “skulls, stylized eagles, [and] American
flags” on rally-related goods now made those symbols off-limits.
The court disagreed.
Though SMRI won a jury trial, SMRI’s lawyer “specifically told the jury that
plaintiff’s trademark claims were not asserted against the defendants or others
‘using Sturgis fairly to denote their geographic location. That’s a fair use.’ The
preliminary injunction was issued with that concession, the limitations of
SMRI’s trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, and the jury verdict in mind.” 
SMRI’s rights didn’t cover American flags, bald eagles, gothic
artwork/fonts, the skull and crossbones, flames, pistols, or any combination
thereof.  “Whether some members of the
motorcycle community, rally attendees or SMRI may envision these symbols and
artwork as signs of the rally, that argument was not the basis of plaintiff’s
claims at trial and not the foundation for the jury’s verdict in favor of
SMRI.” 

The defendants’
proposed uses were consistent with the language and intent of the preliminary
injunction.  The symbols/art didn’t
imitate or resemble SMRI’s marks and were a “safe distance” from infringement. [Even
though they clearly are concepts that motorcycle-related art uses heavily.  Interesting limit on unfair competition—one
might see this as almost the inverse of cases like Belmora.  Having stayed away
from plaintiff’s precise mark, the defendant is entitled to use generic terms;
no more is required, and if generic terms happen to invoke associations with
the mark, that’s too bad for plaintiff.]
Here are some of the okayed designs:

from Blogger http://ift.tt/28JchSV

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