Confusion with firm sued for sexual harassment causes irreparable harm

Newmark Realty Capital, Inc., v. BGC Partners, Inc., No.
16-cv-01702 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017)
Newmark Realty Capital (founded 1991) and defendants BGC
Partners and Newmark & Co. Real Estate “traditionally operated in distinct
sectors of the real estate market and in distinct geographical areas.” Newmark
Realty provides mortgage services in the field of commercial real estate, at
first in California and now with offices in seven states, with 65 people
working for it and “originating and servicing loans for properties” located all
over the country.  Newmark Realty
arranges debt and equity financing through various sources on behalf of
commercial real estate developers and investors, and services loans for lenders
in 39 states and DC.  Newmark Realty has
registrations for NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL and a similar word and design mark,
registered for “financial services, namely, mortgage banking, mortgage
brokerage, loan servicing, investment brokerage and investment consulting in
the field of commercial real estate.” 
Defendant BGC acquired Newmark & Co. Real Estate in 2011
and I’ll refer to them interchangeably. 
Newmark & Co. began as Harris, Newmark & Co., co-founded by Saul
Newmark in Manhattan around 1929. The company changed its name to Newmark &
Co. Real Estate in the late 1950s. By 1979, “the company owned and managed
properties in New York and around the country.” Newmark & Co.’s business in
the late 1970s to mid-1980s focused on the purchase, sale, and management of
its holdings in New York and other states, and grew thereafter.  Newmark & Co. began to use “Newmark
Capital Group” and “Newmark Capital Markets” in 1993 as a division focusing on
capital markets work. Around 1999, Defendant publicly announced “Newmark Realty
Capital, LLC,” later folded into Newmark Capital Markets. Newmark & Co. opened
offices in Connecticut and New Jersey in 1992 and 1993, respectively. In 2000,
Defendant established offices in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Washington D.C.
Many of these new offices launched under the Newmark name such as “Newmark
Partners,” “Newmark of Southern California,” “KTR Newmark,” and “Newmark
Pacific.”  Newmark & Co. is by far
the bigger company, with thousands of employees to Newmark Realty’s 65.
Both companies expanded geographically over the years and defendants
expanded substantially into the mortgage services sector occupied by Newmark
Realty, which owns an incontestable registration for NEWMARK in its service
area. The court partially granted Newmark Realty’s motion for a preliminary
injunction against defendants’ use of “Newmark,” either alone or as part of
other company names, as applied to services in which Newmark & Co. lacked prior
nationwide rights as the senior user in that category.
There’s lots of interesting detail about expansion over time
and about the relationship between various financial services.  The court found that confusion was likely and
indeed ongoing based on Newmark & Co.’s use of NEWMARK, NEWMARK KNIGHT
FRANK, NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK, and other combinations.  There was significant evidence of actual
confusion, including initial interest confusion, by sophisticated financial
services customers, including situations where Newmark Realty’s executives had
to spend 15 minutes explaining their lack of connection with Newmark & Co.;
consumers thought they’d merged with defendants; they were invited to a
ribbon-cutting ceremony where Newmark & Co. had been the entity to arrange
financing; etc. Defendants’ own infringement counterclaims, while not exactly a
confession that confusion was likely, supported that conclusion. 
NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL was registered in 2002 and is now
incontestable; to avoid liability, Newmark & Co. needed to show common law
senior rights in a mark used before that date. 
Given that defendant could trace a Newmark lineage to 1929, they argued
that they had done so. The court only partially agreed.  “Two distinct markets are relevant in this
case: (1) real estate sales and leasing services and (2) mortgage services for
commercial real estate.”  Defendant
showed prior nationwide rights in the former, but not the latter.  That is, defendant’s nationwide services went
to brokering sales and leases between landlords and commercial tenants, not to
offering mortgage/financing services.
The NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL covers “financial services,
namely, mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, investment
brokerage and investment consulting in the field of commercial real estate,” and,
though the court found this to be a close call, defendant didn’t satisfy its
burden to show that it had acquired a nationwide right to use NEWMARK for those
services before 2002, even though the record showed involvement in some
transactions related to mortgage services before 2002.  These sporadic transactions were concentrated
in the New York area, or at best also extending to the Washington, D.C. area.  Defendant’s nationwide ads, and its nationwide
reputation as shown in industry publications, weren’t for “mortgage brokerage”
and “investment sales and financing services” but for sales and leasing.
Defendant’s representations to the PTO also provided “strong
evidence” that it did not provide mortgage services; these representations didn’t
rise to the level of judicial estoppel, but they were persuasive evidence
nonetheless.  In order to register its
own trademarks, defendant repeatedly told the PTO that its business differed
from mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, investment brokerage
and investment consulting in the field of commercial real estate, labeling them
“distinct financial services with different target markets,” and claiming that
defendant was “primarily a commercial landlord and tenant representative and
did “not provide [mortgage] services,” meaning that the parties operated in
“two different lines of business.” 
Nor did defendant get priority under the natural zone of
expansion doctrine.  This doctrine holds
that “[w]hen a senior user of a mark on product line A expands later into
product line B and finds an intervening user, priority in product line B is
determined by whether the expansion is ‘natural’ in that customers would have
been confused as to source or affiliation at the time of the intervening user’s
appearance.” The senior user must thus show that consumers would have been
confused “at the time of the junior user’s first use of its mark.”  Defendant didn’t provide any evidence on
likely confusion in 1991 through 2002.
Newmark Realty argued that Newmark & Co. couldn’t show
continuous use of NEWMARK, as required to use the senior common law user
defense.  Defendant’s arguments of use
for mortgage services had already been rejected; the next question was whether
in 2012 changed that.  “Hence, the
question is: did Defendant stop using NEWMARK by adopting a new mark?” [Now
NEWMARK is starting to look to me like a placeholder for some other TRADEMARK.]
 The court concluded that it did not. “As
long as [a] party can show bona fide use and that consumers recognize the old
mark as the source, there is no reason why it cannot use multiple marks at the
same time.” In the aggregate, there was sufficient evidence that Newmark &
Co. continued to use NEWMARK as a shorthand identifier to the industry, media,
and clients, and third parties had done the same.  NEWMARK was used in a “ ‘deliberate and
continuous, not sporadic, casual or transitory’ manner in a trademark sense
rather than a mere abbreviation.”
The court did, however, reject defendant’s argument that its
use of NEWMARK-formative brands such as “Newmark Knight Frank,” “KTR Newmark,”
Newmark Cornish & Carey,” “ARA, A Newmark Company,” and “Newmark Grubb
Pearson Commercial” constituted continuing use for purposes of the prior use
defense.  [This is an interesting
question: the senior unregistered user is frozen into place, both
geographically and in terms of goods/services; I see the argument that it
should likewise be frozen into place in its mark, though this is the first case
I am aware of to address the issue head-on.] 
Likewise, the standard for tacking is stringent: it requires that “two marks
are so similar that consumers generally would regard them as essentially the
same.” The standard is exceedingly strict: “The marks must create the same,
continuing commercial impression, and the later mark should not materially
differ from or alter the character of the mark attempted to be tacked.” However,
the court found that it didn’t need to assess tacking for real estate sales and
leasing services because Newmark & Co. was likely to prevail on showing
prior and continuous use of NEWMARK. For mortgage services, however, defendant
hadn’t sufficiently shown that the marks “create the same, continuing
commercial impression” with some kind of consumer perception evidence.
Irreparable harm got interesting! Though Newmark Realty didn’t
show any quality difference between the parties’ mortgage services, the court
accepted two other alleged irreparable injury: (1) the effect of a sexual harassment
lawsuit against Newmark & Co. on Newmark Realty’s reputation and goodwill,
and (2) loss of business opportunities.
In early 2017, defendant and several of its Los Angeles
executives were sued for sexual harassment, a lawsuit that’s been covered by
the media.  Herb Reed says that “[e]vidence of loss of control over business
reputation and damage to goodwill could constitute irreparable harm,” and “[t]here
are abundant instances showing clients being confused that Plaintiff was involved
in the sexual harassment suit due to the name ‘Newmark.’”  [Query whether the relief granted can fix
that. The court later simply asserts that “an injunction barring Defendant from
branding itself using confusingly similar marks would deter the threatened loss
of potential customers, and reduce confusion among the customers and thus the
reputational harm imposed on Plaintiff.”]
Notably, the court said that “not all litigation against a
competitor who uses a similar name would be seen as causing reputational harm
sufficient to support a preliminary injunction,” but, “at this particular time,
a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and assault against Defendant takes on a
different dimension” given the ongoing public attention to claims of sexual
harassment and assault that have “rocked” many industries. “It is no
exaggeration to say that such claims are toxic to business.”
Similarly, loss of business opportunities constituted
irreparable harm. Newmark Realty clearly showed a “threatened loss of
prospective customers” from solicitations by Newmark & Co.’s employees. For
example, one person submitted a declaration indicating that his assistant
screens out cold calls including those from Newmark & Co. because he does
not have a relationship with them, but callers from Newmark & Co. have nonetheless
been able to bypass the assistant by referring to themselves as being from
“Newmark.” The threatened loss was greater because Newmark & Co. acquired
Berkeley Point Capital, a major competitor of Newmark Realty in mortgage
services, and Newmark & Co. has stated that Berkeley Point “will become
part of Newmark [Knight Frank].” “Plaintiff, with a staff of only about 65
people, also faces a heightened risk of losing its identity to the much larger
Defendant who has over 4,000 employees and independent contractors.” 

Ultimately, the court denied Newmark Realty’s request to
enjoin Newmark & Co. from “using the single word ‘Newmark’ as a trademark
to denote the source of any professional services of any nature whatsoever, in
any form whatsoever, whether oral or written.” However, it was appropriate to enjoin
“using the word ‘Newmark,’ alone or in combination with any other words, as a
trademark to denote the source of any commercial real estate financial
services, i.e., mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing,
investment brokerage and investment consulting, in the field of commercial real
estate, in any form whatsoever, whether oral or written.”  Even if Newmark & Co. had invested
millions in building its own NEWMARK brand, the injunction didn’t bar it from
using NEWMARK for its real estate sales and leasing services or other types of
services not covered by Newmark Realty’s trademark registration.  Anyway, even as to mortgage services, the harm
inflicted on Newmark & Co. was its own fault; based on its representations
to the PTO, Newmark & Co. was likely aware of Newmark Realty’s trademark
rights for the relevant services.

from Blogger

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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