Quite a specimen: trademark-filing firms’ legal battle continues, in part

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Trademark Engine LLC, 2018
WL 5734621, No. 17-cv-07303-MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)
RAPC, a law firm, alleged that its competitor TME “operates
website TrademarkEngine.com to advertise, promote and provide trademark related
services” and used false or misleading statements in Google ads and on its
website, as well as engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation
of the Lanham Act and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
Two TME ads allegedly contained the word “professional,” which
allegedly was a misrepresentation that TME’s services were “lawful”; TME
allegedly violated customers’ privacy rights, submitted fraudulent specimens to
the PTO, and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  One ad, displayed in response to a search for
“trademark filing,” said “Let the Professionals File Your Trademark Today!” while
the website touted “Professional Preparation of your federal trademark
application.” The court found that this was puffery, without specific
actionable representations.
RAPC also alleged that TME misdescribed its “Identity
Protection Program.” TME’s website stated that when a trademark applicant
submits an application directly to the USPTO, the applicant’s “email and phone
number will be available for all to see,” including “[s]pammers, solicitors and
anyone else,” but that, for a monthly fee of $5, TME would provide its email
and phone number to the USPTO. TME argued that RAPC hadn’t shown injury from
these statements, but where there’s direct competition, “a misrepresentation
will give rise to a presumed commercial injury that is sufficient to establish
standing.” RAPC also pled falsity by alleging that, “regardless of whether a
customer purchased the $5/month privacy protection program or not, [TME] always
lists each of its customer’s contact information, including emails and phone
numbers, on [the] USPTO’s trademark application forms” and that such customer
information is “publically [sic] available on [the] USPTO’s website.” RAPC also
sufficiently pled proximate cause by alleging it “lost customers” to TME and
that its “market share” has “decline[d]” from “nearly 2.4%” to “approximately
1.8%,” and that it had to reduce its prices from “$499 to $199 and sometimes
lower to match the unfair competition of [TME].” This was enough at the
pleading stage.
§ 17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice.” RAPC alleged four kinds of practices. First,
violation of the right to privacy set forth in the California Constitution by “(1)
waiving clients’ rights to cancel the filing or refund the government fee; (2)
waiving clients’ rights to privacy by allowing their names, phone numbers, emails
and street addresses to be published publicly; and (3) permitting [the] USPTO
to make clients’ information available for public search on [the] USPTO’s
online databases and other databases.”  But RAPC failed to allege facts to support the
requisite finding that it lost money or property as a result of any of TME’s
clients having been deprived of their right of privacy. Nor did RAPC allege a
legally protected privacy interest in a client’s “right to cancel the filing or
refund the government fee” or “an egregious breach of social norms” in
disseminating information to the PTO.
Submission of fraudulent specimens to the PTO: Though
“knowingly and willfully” submitting a fraudulent specimen violates the law,
RAPC didn’t allege facts sufficient to support a finding of such intent.  
Unauthorized practice of law: A law firm plaintiff has
standing to contest this conduct if the firm “suffered losses in revenue and
asset value and was required to pay increased advertising costs specifically
because of the [allegedly unauthorized practice].” RAPC properly alleged these
losses and their causation, and the facts alleged, if proven, were sufficient
to support a finding that TME engaged in unauthorized practice of law under
California and Texas law.
Violation of PTO regulations for “practitioners”: RAPC
alleged violations of various PTO rules, but the complaint didn’t allege facts
to support a finding that the individual defendant, Crabtree, did so.
RAPC also alleged “unfair” and “unlawful” business practices
from the submission of fraudulent specimens and the unauthorized practice of
law. For competitor-plaintiffs, “unfair” means “conduct that threatens an
incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of
one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a
violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms
competition.” The allegedly unlawful acts here didn’t qualify.
RAPC was entitled to seek injunctive relief for its
remaining § 17200 claims, but not restitution—it never had an ownership
interest in defendants’ allegedly wrongfully acquired money.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2RKt9yC

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 )

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