An IP licensing agency which is working for the Lockheed Corporation has send C&D letter to John MacNeill and “requested” him to remove his works from TurboSquid website. Those works were professionally made 3D models of B-24 plane. The Equity Management alleged that such works infringes on B-24 trade mark, owned by Lockheed. There is a really good post about this issue on www.boingboing.net website so I’ll not repeat this news. However, I was interested in the case-law that was cited by Corynne McSherry (staff attorney working for the Electronic Frontier Foundation) as she published a post about her response letter (PDF file ) in John MacNeill case on www.eff.org website. One of cited cases was WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Ass’n, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1991). The Court ruled that
Defendants failed to show that plaintiff’s broadcast with the use of the words “Boston Marathon” created a risk of public confusion that plaintiff’s broadcast had an official imprimatur.
In New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992), United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, held in the judgment written by Alex Kozinski, that the defendant has used “The New Kids On The Block” trade mark
to identify the group and not to imply the group’s endorsement. The court noted that a competitor could even use a rival’s trademark in advertising for profit if the use was not false or misleading and did not implicate the source-identification function of the trademark
Corynne McSherry also mentioned the case Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) where the Court held that the Found
claim failed because the law of the deceased personality’s domicile did not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. The court then held that the merchant was entitled to a fair use defense under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1115(b) because the merchant’s use of the name and likeness of Princess Diana was a permissible nominative fair use. The court further held that the false advertisement claim was groundless because the statements in the advertisements at issue were true and the charity fund had no reasonable basis to believe they were false. The court finally held that the award of attorneys’ fees to the merchant was justified and reasonable.
For the comparative approach in a similiar case I’d like to mention about The Court of Justice of the European Communities’s case C-48/05, Adam Opel (OJ C 56 of 10.03.2007, p.4). Adam Opel discovered that a 1:24 remote-controlled scale model of the Opel Astra V8 coupé, bearing the Opel logo on its radiator grille like the original vehicle, was being marketed in Germany. The trade mark holder for Opel mark has also found that toys’ producer is Autec. Opel sued Autec before the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth, but interpretation problems arose as regards to article 5(1)(a) and (2), and article 6(1)(b) of the First Directive 89/104/EEC (I always wonder where is the second directive ;) and in the consequence the case landed as a request for the preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, before the Court. It held that:
1. Where a trade mark is registered both for motor vehicles – in respect of which it is well known – and for toys, the affixing by a third party, without authorisation from the trade mark proprietor, of a sign identical to that trade mark on scale models of vehicles bearing that trade mark, in order faithfully to reproduce those vehicles, and the marketing of those scale models:
– constitute, for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, a use which the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prevent if that use affects or is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for toys;
– constitute, within the meaning of Article 5(2) of that directive, a use which the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prevent – where the protection defined in that provision has been introduced into national law – if, without due cause, use of that sign takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for motor vehicles.
2. Where a trade mark is registered, inter alia, in respect of motor vehicles, the affixing by a third party, without the authorisation of the proprietor of the trade mark, of a sign identical to that mark to scale models of that make of vehicle, in order faithfully to reproduce those vehicles, and the marketing of those scale models, do not constitute use of an indication concerning a characteristic of those scale models, within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104.
Update on May 21, 2008.
It looks like Lockheed Martin has withdrawn its claim. More details at www.eff.org website.
