Pom and circumstance: Pom Wonderful wins against Pur Pom

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, No. 13-06917, 2016 WL 3621281
(C.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2016)
Disclosure: I consulted with Pom on an earlier iteration of
this litigation, though I have not been involved subsequently.  Even when courts in the Ninth Circuit get
outcomes right, their reasoning is often head-scratching, and this case is no
exception.
Pom sued Hubbard and his company for trademark infringement over
its PUR Pǒm flavored beberages.  The district
court initially denied Pom’s motion for a preliminary injunction; the court of
appeals reversed, but the
district court again denied a preliminary injunction given the high standard
set by Herb Reed
.  Now we’re at summary judgment, where Hubbard
counterclaimed for cancellation of Pom’s marks on various grounds.  Pom won summary judgment; Hubbard lost. The court included lots of pictures, which is great!
The parties’ products are sold in single serve containers in
the refrigerated sections of supermarkets, at a retail price of $1.99 for POM
Wonderful pomegranate juice and $2.00 for PUR Pǒm.

The parties’ marks as used

Hubbard argued that Pom abandoned its standard character
mark by only ever using a version with a heart in the place of the “o” in Pom,
which it separately registered as a stylized mark. The court held that use of
the stylized mark also constituted use of the standard character mark, and thus
there was no abandonment.  The parties
appear to think that abandonment is important because a standard character mark
affords a registrant “a broader scope of coverage” compared to a stylized mark
(citing McCarthy), even though that doesn’t actually affect the infringement
analysis.  The court cites a number of
registration proceedings/rulings about the significance of a standard character
mark in the registration process, as
well as the Ninth Circuit’s statement in this case, that the “‘POM’ standard
character mark is extremely broad, covering the word in all types of
depictions.” Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014).  But then it went on to ignore that in the
infringement analysis, focusing on the similarity between the mark Pom uses and
the mark Hubbard uses.
 

Pom’s stylized mark
If the specimen of use shows a display of the standard
characters “in a distinctive manner that changes the meaning or overall
commercial impression of the mark,” then the standard character mark can’t
stand.  The PTO allows a stylized version
to be separately registered if “the word [that forms the standard character
mark] itself creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the
designs in the letters.” The TMEP says: “If a mark remains the same in essence
and is recognizable regardless of the form or manner of display that is
presented, displaying the mark in standard character format affords a quick and
efficient way of showing the essence of the mark.”
The TTAB allowed a standard character registration for
OROWEAT with the specimen shown below, because the word “creates a commercial
impression separate and apart from the merely ancillary design with which it is
associated.”

The same with SPECTRAMET, even though the specimen depicted
a stylized “C” consisting of “an arrow within an arrow in contrasting shades,
in which the outer arrow is dark and surrounding the inner arrow in white.” 

Given this precedent, the court thought the result here was
clearly mandated, because “POM” created a distinct commercial impression; the
stylized lettering “does not alter the pronunciation or perception of the word;
the standard character mark is both aurally and visually indistinguishable from
the mark bearing a heart-shaped ‘O.’”
The TTAB’s contrary decision about the version of FOSSIL
shown below was very different: the rights conferred by the standard character
mark “FOSSIL” did not cover use of the mark coupled with additional words
inside an oval.

The court then granted Pom summary judgment on Hubbard’s
argument that the term “pom” was generic for pomegranates.  Hubbard submitted one Pom Wonderful
advertisement and evidence of third-party use of the term “pom,” but the court
found this failed to create a triable issue of fact, given Hubbard’s burden of
proof.  Pom’s own generic use of the term
was not repeated and consistent; it was one ad from 2002 that said, “The POM
stands for pomegranate.” This single, isolated incident was insufficient.
As for third-party use, Hubbard testified in a declaration
that he googled  “pom flavor,” which
yielded 52,000 pages of results. He searched the first ten pages and located
numerous generic uses in which third parties referenced “pom” as shorthand for
pomegranate. Pom has also opposed 32 third-party applications with the USPTO to
register trademarks containing the word “pom” as a component of the mark.
The Google search didn’t show anything about whether the
term was generic when Hubbard’s product entered the market, in 2013, which was
the relevant date for determining genericity. 
Also, Hubbard’s URL list dump was unexplained and unanalyzed.  “It is impossible to determine solely from a
series of hyperlinks whether competitors are actually using the term ‘pom’ as a
proxy for pomegranate or whether these third-party references simply use ‘pom’
in a descriptive manner to designate the pomegranate flavor of their products.”  Hubbard also didn’t explain the relevance of
the 32 trademark applications, some of which clearly made no reference to
pomegranate, such as “Pom Poms” for cookies in the shape of pom poms.
This “anemic” showing didn’t create a triable issue of fact on
genericness.
The parties’ beverage containers

Pom’s trademark infringement claim: The court,
unfortunately, found that “Pom” was suggestive because it “requires consumers
to exercise some imagination to ascertain the nature of Pom Wonderful’s
products.”  At this point, I guess I have
to say this is not the test outside the 9th Circuit.  Everywhere else does it right: you don’t
ascertain conceptual distinctiveness without considering the goods or
services.  Is “pomegranate” inherently
distinctive?  Well, that depends on what it’s for!  I might have to use imagination to guess that
it was for computers, but not for beverages.
This error has limited consequence here because (a) the
court considered suggestive marks “presumptively weak” and (b) Pom showed
marketplace strength through ad expenditures and other evidence.
Similarities in the marks “abound[ed].”  The letters were the same; both had style
variations on the “o,” a heart and a diacritical; they both used uniform casing
(all caps and all lower case); they were both in white print on a dark maroon
background.  Sound and meaning were also
similar/semantically identical.  There
were differences in sizes, fonts, and capitalization, as well as the emphasis
given to the marks; the Pur product used a smaller “Pǒm” mark near the bottom
of the can.  But overall the similarities
made this factor weigh in Pom’s favor.
The goods were closely related, the marketing channels
overlap (both were even at Albertson’s stores at one point), the degree of
consumer care was low, and the remaining factors weren’t important under the
circumstances—intent is minimally important, and no evidence of actual
confusion is required. Five of the Sleekcraft
factors “overwhelmingly” weighed in favor of Pom, and the only one that weighed
in favor of Hubbard was intent.
The court then rejected Hubbard’s descriptive fair use
defense.  The court first ruled that “pom”
didn’t have a descriptive meaning, which seems really inconsistent with its
treatment of the Google search results above, not to mention the classification
of “pom” as suggestive; the court thought that, because “pom” didn’t have a
dictionary definition, it couldn’t be used descriptively, “as it carries no
inherent meaning or significance beyond its function as a registered trademark.”
Even if it could be used descriptively, the court (either
failing to notice KP Permanent or,
perhaps more realistically, doing what courts in the 9th Circuit do
when confronted with KP Permanent)
held that, in the Ninth Circuit, descriptive fair use is unavailable when there’s
a likelihood of confusion.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/29CotZu

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