Dirty Dancing remake: court grants reconsideration on dilution

Lions Gate Ent. Inc. v. TD Ameritrade Servs. Co., No. cv
15-05024  (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016)
discussion and images from the campaign here.
  Lions Gate claims common-law marks in DIRTY  DANCING and NOBODY PUTS BABY IN A CORNER, while
Ameritrade’s ads used the line  “Nobody
puts your old 401k in a corner” and a depiction of a man  lifting a piggy bank over his head.  The court granted reconsideration of the
dismissal of the trademark dilution claims, because it previously required the
that the defendant use a mark identical or nearly identical to the plaintiff’s
mark.  The Ninth Circuit has held
(wrongly, in my opinion) that the defendant’s mark need not be identical,
nearly identical, or even substantially similar to the plaintiff’s mark under
the TDRA.  Levi Strauss & Co. v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 633 
F.3d 1158, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011).  
RT: The court of appeals based its reasoning on the
existence of a multifactor statutory test for blurring which mentions only the
degree of similarity, without setting a threshold for similarity.  But the multifactor test also lists various
elements of distinctiveness/fame, without setting a threshold—and nonetheless,
in order to be “famous,” the mark at issue will already have satisfied a
threshold requirement of very high distinctiveness.  Given the power accorded the owner of a “famous”
mark under the dilution statute, and the lack of clarity over what dilution
even is, not to mention the fact that the legislative history exclusively
discusses identical marks such as “Buick Aspirin,” a requirement of (near) identicality
would be more appropriate.  However, the
district court here can’t ignore circuit precedent—it’s not as if the district
court is a 9th Circuit panel.

Anyhow, revisiting the issue, while the court initially concluded
that Ameritrade didn’t seem to be using the mark as a mark for its own goods
and services, which is a requirement
under the TDRA, it now devoted more attention to the issue and found that Lions
Gate had sufficiently alleged use as a mark. 
Ameritrade allegedly admitted that they used “Nobody puts your old 401k
in a/the corner” as a tagline, which was tantamount to admitting use as a mark.  (What about the dance lift with the piggy
bank?)  Slogans can be trademarks, and
Ameritrade has previously sought registration for other slogans.  Because the complaint alleged that the tagline,
“used alone and with other allusions to the  motion picture, such as the Dance Lift and the
reference to the  song … is likely to
cause people to falsely or  incorrectly
believe that Lions Gate has approved, licensed,  endorses, sponsored, and/or authorized, or is
associated with, TD  Ameritrade’s
products and/or services,” that was sufficient to allege use as a mark.  Note the oddity here that allegations about
confusion, which don’t seem to have been revived, turn into allegations about
trademark use—perhaps another reminder of the poor fit of dilution into
American theories about what trademarks are for.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2auSuX5

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s