Rogers v Grimaldi doesn’t apply to alcohol, but Peaky Blinders still can’t get injunction

Caryn
Mandabach Prods. Ltd. v. Sadlers Brewhouse Ltd., 2021 WL 2497928, No. CV
20-10220-CBM-(JEMx) (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2021)

Mandabach
produces the TV series Peaky Blinders, and it alleged that it owned
trademarks and other intellectual property of the show “and certain
quotations/sayings/phrases from the show.” Defendants allegedly sold three
alcoholic beverages under the name “Peaky Blinder” and used quotations/sayings/phrases from
the show. Mandabach sued under §43(a) and coordinate state law claims and
sought cancellation of a trademark registration.

one of the beverages

Defendants
argued that their use “communicates messages and ideas to consumers such as
Defendant Sadler’s historical connection to the real Peaky Blinders gang,” so Rogers
should apply. Defendant Sadler’s managing director declared she “felt that
Peaky Blinder was an appropriate name” for Sadler’s new dark beer because the
Peaky Blinder gang’s “well-known dark history” “connected” with the dark beer
and she was interested in naming the beer after the Peaky Blinder gang in light
of her family and Sadler’s history with the gang.

The
court rejected the argument: “Such evidence does not demonstrate Defendants’
use of the mark conveys an idea or point of view, and therefore the Rogers
test does not apply.” Of course, this is both the right result (the name of the
beer is commercial speech on a nonspeech product) and completely bonkers
reasoning (the Supreme Court has twice held in the past few years that
trademarks often convey ideas and points of view). If we got rid of the bizarre
idea that Rogers was about artistic works and correctly labeled it as
being about commercial speech, courts would do much better.

Did
Mandabach have valid marks? The dictionary definitions of the words “Peaky” and
“Blinders” were not dispositive.  As
applied to a TV show about a group of persons named the Peaky Blinders, it was
descriptive or suggestive. (That doesn’t seem a helpful conclusion, but the
court seems to think that suggestive terms must have secondary meaning to be
protected.) And Mandabach failed to show actual association of the TV show with
a particular source. It submitted 14 social media posts “which it contends
shows consumers and retailers attributed a particular source to Defendants’
liquor and Plaintiff’s television show.” But there was no evidence that these
were actual purchasers of Sadler’s products, and only one actually stated that
they came from the same source (“I’m a MASSIVE fan of the Peaky Blinders TV
series so I had to try their Irish Whiskey and give it a review.”). By
contrast, another asks, “Are you a Peaky Blinders fan? Check out this awarding
[sic] winning gin and whiskey from @sadlersbrewco!” That didn’t show that the
person thought they both came from the same source.

What
about other evidence of sales etc.? Mandabach submitted evidence demonstrating
the show ranks as a top-5 Netflix original drama upon the release of each new
season, a “teaser” trailer for the fifth season of the show has been viewed 2.5
million times, and the show has 4 million followers on in its Instagram
account, 2.6 million followers on Facebook, and 686,000 followers on Twitter. There
was also coverage by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times,
Rolling Stone, Variety, Vox, and Mashable. But this didn’t show source
significance. And five years of use in the US was insufficient to show
secondary meaning.  Nor did Mandabach show
its use was exclusive, so it didn’t show likely success on secondary meaning.

Comment:
Meanwhile we have courts saying that even generic terms can be the foundation
of §43(a) claims and therefore allowing claims based on part number comparisons
to go forward.  

Anyway,
Mandabach also didn’t show likely confusion. The mark was weak; the goods were
not proximate; the marks were similar; one social media instance of confusion
was insufficient to show likely confusion; marketing channels didn’t favor likely
confusion because everyone uses the internet and social media; cost below $25
favored confusion.

As for
intent, an article from Sadlers’ sales director about Peaky Blinder Beer said:
“It’s been selling like mad and done exceptionally well; (2) The idea came from
our managing director Chris Sadler, who is also head brewer. To be honest, the
idea was inspired. And with a second series of Peaky Blinders set to hit the
screen in September, its popularity is only likely to increase; and (3) we are
confident it will be a success because of the popularity of the television
programme.” But that didn’t go to intent in initially selecting the mark. The
managing director declared “[a]t the time that I chose the name Peaky Blinder,
I had never heard of [Plaintiff’s] Peaky Blinders television program … and no
one at Sadler’s was familiar with the program as far as I was aware,” and
further declares she “felt that Peaky Blinder was an appropriate name” as
discussed above.

Product
line expansion: Though Sadler’s was unlikely to expand to TV, Mandabach’s
commercial director declared “there has been great interest from third parties
for licenses for wines and spirits,” in May 2020 Plaintiff executed a license
agreement with a third party for red wine featuring the Peaky Blinders mark,
and Mandabach “has been unable to complete a deal” with potential third-party
licensees “for other types of alcohol and spirits … as a result of the
dispute with Defendants and their continued unauthorized use of the Peaky
Blinders” marks. That favored a confusion finding.

On
balance, Mandabach failed to make a “clear showing” of a likelihood of
confusion at this stage.

False
advertising/passing off: Same basic problems.

Even
if the rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm applied, Mandabach had actual
knowledge of the use of the mark in April 2018, when its licensee sent a
warning letter to Sadler regarding its purported infringement. But Mandabach waited
until November 2020 to sue and moved for a preliminary injunction only in March
2021. This delay demonstrated an absence of irreparable harm.

 

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3Bvl9rT

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