Or at least you should be. On February 2, 2007, Cheryl Bentley sued Donald Trump and the creators of the NBC television series The Apprentice for allegedly creating an illegal lottery in the state of Georgia.

The “Get Rich With Trump” sweepstakes is a watch-and-win promotion where entrants watch the television show and, at the prompting of the announcer, text in which Apprentice contestant should be sent to “Tent City.” The rules state that in addition to any mobile phone text charges that may apply, Sponsor will charge entrant a $.99 “premium” charge per text entry. The rules also allow for a free method of entry online.

Perhaps the sweepstakes attorney who vetted this promotion should be sent to Tent City instead. Many states carry laws on their books that clearly state that a free method of entry does not cure an otherwise illegal lottery. If the pay-to-play method of entry does not provide the entrant with something equal in value to what was paid, the lottery is still illegal. In this case, an entrant gets no more for its money that does an entrant who chooses to use the Internet entry method.

Trademark 101: two companies cannot use an identical mark for similar or related products. This is to avoid consumer confusion. The company that owns an earlier federal registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) generally prevails; the other must change the name of its product (with many nuances and exceptions, of course!).

Now everyone is talking about the Apple iPhone. But have you heard of the Linksys iPhone? Probably not until Cisco (Linksys’ parent company) filed a much publicized lawsuit against Apple over the mark “iPhone” two weeks ago. Cisco claims that it owns senior rights in the mark and that Apple cannot use the name.

Cisco’s complaint is available here

Cisco has owned a PTO registration for “iPhone” since 2000 (when it purchased the company Infogear). Apple owns foreign applications for the mark (in Asia, Europe and Australia). Cisco’s registration is for “computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks” (Reg. No. 2,293,011). In December 2006, less than a month before the anticipated launch of the Apple Iphone, Linksys, a division of Cisco, released its iPhone handheld device.

The differences between the devices may play a role in resolving the dispute. Cisco’s iPhone products work with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services (like Skype), while the Apple iPhone is more like a conventional cell phone that uses internet connections, not to make calls, but to browse the web or check emails. The differences are subtle, but judges and the PTO have been known to allow identical marks to coexist in the telecommunications and software industries if the products have different uses and markets.

Another issue that may come up in the case is Cisco’s use of the mark since 2000. Infogear was using the mark for its line of “phone-plus-internet” products, but did Cisco use the mark in commerce before launching its own iPhone device in 2006? This is important because if a mark has not been in use for 3 consecutive years and the owner has done nothing to try to resume use of the mark, the PTO may presume that the owner has abandoned the mark. Apple may use that argument to try to invalidate Cisco’s registration.

Stay tuned for updates on the dispute…

In the meantime, bloggers are already coming up with alternate names for Apple’s iPhone: MacPhone, iTalk, iCall, iWishIHadABetterName…

On January 1, Bulgaria and Romania became the 26th and 27th members of the European Union (“EU”). Bulgaria and Romania are probably not on your radar now, but they may be in the future, as the two countries continue to grow their economies and modernize their infrastructures to meet EU standards.

In the meantime, the news is likely to affect your trademark rights if you are doing business in Europe, or if you are planning to expand your business to the Balkan states.

First, a few words about trademarks in Europe. The EU has a system, called the European Community Trademark (“CTM”), that allows companies and individuals to file a single trademark application that covers all member countries (instead of having to file individually with each country’s trademark office). When new countries join the EU, like Bulgaria and Romania did two weeks ago, they join that system automatically.

What does this mean practically?

First piece of good news for companies with pre-01/01/07 CTM applications and registrations: their trademark rights are automatically extended to the two new member countries. They can now enforce their marks in Bulgaria and Romania — even if the infringers have filed trademark applications in those countries. Of course, with the good comes some bad (and possible confusion). To help in the transition, owners of national trademarks in Bulgaria and Romania have been granted an exceptional right to oppose confusingly similar CTM marks filed between July 1 and December 31, 2006. The extension of the EU also means that the CTM office can now object to marks on the basis that they are generic or descriptive in Romanian and Bulgarian. This will not be a problem for most companies as their marks probably do not have a meaning in those languages. Nevertheless, companies looking to file trademarks in the EU may want to take these new elements into consideration when chosing a mark to be used in the European market.

For more information about what the EU enlargement means from a trademark perspective, the European Trademark Office published a circular available at:
http://oami.europa.eu/en/enlargement/enlargement2007.htm

A couple of individuals whose last names are Tucker and Ruth have filed a couple of important law suits in the last month. Class action law suits which means that the plaintiff is asserting that the true number of plaintiffs that form the ‘class’ in the ‘action’ are too numerous to count. The operative word is “individuals” here because that is the constituency of people who are downloading music from Apple’s iTunes and buying music from the conventional big music players (Sony, BMG, Universal, TimeWarner).

The two class action cases are based on a claim that Apple and the big music players are effectively a monopoly because they collectively are over 75% of the market providers of music; and, because they have deliberately and consciously disabled the individuals in the market from having the right/ability to use the music that they are acquiring over different platforms. In short, it is the choke hold that Apple and the big music players have over the music buyers options of how or where to play the music that is the problem.

The law suits are a further indication that the consumer market is growing intolerant with being dictated to and restricted in how the music plays. The ‘Consumer Technology Bill of Rights’ has been percolating through the grassroots communities for some time and involves these rights:

1. Users have the right to “time-shift” content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to record video or audio for later viewing or listening. For example, you can use a VCR to record a TV show and play it back later.
2. Users have the right to “space-shift” content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial). For example, you can copy a CD to a portable music player so that you can listen to the songs while you’re jogging.
3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content.
This gives you the right to make archival copies to be used in the event that your original copies are destroyed.
4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.
This gives you the right to listen to music on your Rio, to watch TV on your iMac, and to view DVDs on your Linux computer.
5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats.
This gives you the right to modify content in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud.
6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned.
This last right guarantees your ability to exercise your other rights. Certain recent copyright laws have paradoxical loopholes that claim to grant certain rights but then criminalize all technologies that could allow you to exercise those rights. In contrast, this Bill of Rights states that no technological barriers can deprive you of your other fair use rights.

These cases pursue number two and four, above, the right to space shift and the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) seems to have gotten a grasp on the solution ahead of the big music company members who comprise the RIAA. Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, recently joined in possibly supporting these two ‘rights’ when he said, “We are focused on interoperability”.

What interoperability will look like; and whether the leading device manufacturers, Apple and Microsoft, will begin to offer some version of ‘pret a porter’ remains to be seen. But the recipients of music are definately not passive recipients. Consumers want the music and they want to be able to take it with them beyond the machines from which they first legitimately access it. Watch this space. As it is known, we’ll be discussing it here.

Jeff Koons has contributed mightily to measuring the metes and bounds of what constitutes ‘fair use’ in making unauthorized use of someone else’s copyrights. He did it with images of puppies; he did it with celebrity photographs; and now, he’s done it again with ladies legs.

To begin at the beginning, Andrea Blanch, a professional photographer, took a series of photographs of women’s legs that were used in the August 2000 issue of “ALLURE” magazine.

Jeff Koons, in fulfilling on a commission from the Guggenheim Foundation and Deutsche Bank, elected to scan a portion of Blanch’s legs; and, then Koons took the digital scan of Blanch’s work and digitally superimposed those Blanch images against a background of pastoral landscapes. The resulting image is said to comprise to a ‘collage’ which was then reduced to templates for painting upon billboard sized canvases and entitled “EasyFun-Ethereal”. The Koons’ collage (with Blanch’s work embedded) was exhibited in 2000 and 2001 in Berlin and New York City.

Blanch sued; and, Koons succeeded at the trial court level on his defense of fair use. Blanch appealed; and the Second Circuit had a long look at the picture. After the court found that the first and second factors of the four-part fair use analysis demonstrated that the collage was both transformative and constituted social commentary. With ‘transformative’ recognized, it was not surprising that fair use was found, but it didn’t help when Blanch admitted that the use of her photographs did not harm her career, the market for her work or the value of the work in the market place. ( No. 05-6433-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2006)

Koons must be appreciated for his fondness for incurring legal fees. He is a Don Quixote of ‘Fair Use’ who has quite a track record for galvanizing fine copyright case law. Maybe there is a Guggenheim grant funding that quest on which Koons has led so many lawyers and students. Not surprisingly, Koons had his own team of lawyers; and the Guggenheim Foundation had their own team of lawyers; Deutsche Bank had their own team of lawyers…. and giving a grant to Koons begins to look like that old PRELL commercial for lawyers’ full employment.

Chris Gregerson, an individual professional photographer representing himself in Minneapolis federal court, fails in obtaining an injunction against a financial institution that appropriate his photograph of the Minneapolis skyline; but succeeded in eluding a defamation counterclaim.

Defendants use the allegedly infringing photograph in their real estate web ads, print ads, brochures and in third party business directory advertisements, changed only by the elimination of Gregerson’s copyright notice.

Gregerson, after learning of the infringement and finding no satisfaction in his demand that defendants stop infringement, posted on his own website to make his accusation of copyright infringement more public and explicit. The defendants in Chris Gregerson v. Vilana Financial Inc. et al (No. 06-1164, D. Minn.) counterclaimed that Gregerson’s website constituted defamation and trademark infringement. Specifically, the defendants claim that the organic search engine results are skewed as a result of the defendant’s trademarks depicted in Gregerson’s website.

Gregerson defended claiming a first amendment right to state his criticism of defendants.

This is another in a long line of cases where the First Amendment trumps intellectual property causes of action; and it especially predictable when the First Amendment claim includes a criticism.

Now with YouTube allowing 90,000 new videos to be posted daily, this action is remarkable not for the controversy but because Gregerson knew, could locate and serve the parties that are making allegedly unauthorized use of his photographs. Take a look at the YouTube site and especially the most popularly viewed. None of the photographs, music or other third party copyright is authorized on YouTube; and we haven’t see a spate of law suits. What a boon that safe harbor clause of the DMCA is for us all, right?

The U.S. Copyright Statute has two symmetrical parts to Section 102. The first subsection sets out what is protected (… original expression fixed in tangible medium…”) inside the tent of copyright so to speak; and the second subsection sets out what is prohibited from that tent’s protection (…. In no case shall copyright protection extend to idea, process, system, concept, method of operation…). Over time, we have come to understand that the metaphorical tent of copyright does not extend to function. For function protection, you have to go to the Patent Office’s tent.

But with our government being the best that money can buy, and given that there is more power in PAC lobbying than ever before, a new bill (S.17850) has passed the House and the Senate and needs now only minor ratification in the Senate before it is law. That new bill will extend copyright protection to function, specifically, vessel deck designs. This will be a further extension of the camel’s function nose in the copyright tent that the earlier 2005 legislation brought in protecting vessel hull designs.

This is legislation has been specially lobbied through by the small craft design and manufacturing community; and, is the harbinger of the garment design (‘fashion’) bill that is in line to be addressed next. The proposed garment design bill will grant a three year monopoly to garment designers on patterns and features of clothing. Who knows, perhaps the optical design and manufacturing community will succeed in proposing new legislation for optical gear which has eluded protection to their satisfaction… and then we’ll approach the whole head of the camel coming in under the tent of copyright.

Listening to the new “3-1-1″ airport public service announcement, the approved phrasing for the rules of what liquid/gels are allowed through security is:

“Three One One means that you can take as many separate three ounces of liquid/gels that fit in one 1 quart ZIPLOCK bag per person”

The trademark ZIPLOCK is owned and registered throughout the world by SC Johnson as applied to “disposable, re-sealable plastic bags and containers”.

But the government approved verbiage is not that the “3-1-1″ analysis will include any ‘disposable, re-sealable, plastic bags’. It states that 1 quart ZIPLOCK bags are required.

Travelling as much as I have since the liquid/gel airport security issue arose on August 10th of this year, I have not seen any resealable bags, not from SC Johnson, turned away. And there are many such nonZIPLOCK bags which are going through security every minute.

Could SC Johnson make a claim that the government use of the mark ZIPLOCK is causing genericide?

One of the chestnuts of trademark lore is that once a trademark falls into the generic, it can not be redeemed back into the more elevated status of being a trademark. The exception that proves the rule, as the idiom goes, is when the U.S. Government was accused of having caused the mark SINGER to fall into generic, and was then found to be a trademark in the case of Singer Mfg. Co. v. Briley, 207 F. 2d 519, 520-21 (5th Cir. 1953). [Compare Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896) (holding that “Singer” a generic term for sewing machines) with Singer Mfg. Co. v. Briley, 207 F.2d 519 (5th Cir. 1953) (holding that “by the constant and exclusive use of the name ‘Singer’ in designating sewing machines and other articles manufactured and sold by it and in advertising the same continuously and widely – [plaintiff] recaptured from the public domain the name ‘Singer’. . . [which] has thus become a valid trade-mark . . . and is entitled to protection as such”). If, as this Court recognized in Singer, it is possible to reclaim from the public domain even a mark held generic by the Supreme Court

Why would SC Johnson not claim that the government is emperiling the validity of that valuable mark, ZIPLOCK? And what is the statute of limitations on trademark infringement, anyway?

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 2006 WL 3182468 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2006)

Pamela Reeder is the founder of Haute Diggity Dog which is dedicated to making fun of our globalized disease of affluenza while making some of her mortgage payment. Her company is self described as a “parody, plush, pet toy company” and the images of her products are depicted below, including “Sniffany & Co,” “Chewnell No. 5″ and “Chewy Vuiton.”

When Louis Vuitton filed a trademark and dilution action in Virginia against the parodist, the court lost no time in ruling in favor of Haute Diggity Dog, saying:

“This dog of a case gave the court a great amount of facts to chew upon and applicable law to sniff out. Nonetheless, having thoroughly gnawed through the record, this Court finds that no material dispute of the fact remain.”

and:

“The name “Chewy Vuiton” is, like “Timmy Holedigger,” an obvious parody of a famous brand name. The fact that the real Vuitton name, marks, and dress are strong and recognizable makes it unlikely that a parody-particularly one involving a pet chew toy and bed–will be confused with the real product.”

Vuitton also claimed copyright infringement. Why not just trademark infringement? Because, in 2002, Vuitton collaborated with Japanese pop artist Takashi Murakami to re-invent Vuitton’s signature gold and brown monogram design. What resulted was a multicolor monogram design and a line of handbags and accessories that inspired a cult-like following. It seems that Murakami filed a copyright application for his design in 2002. On-line Copyright Office records list Vuitton as claimant and the work as “work made for hire.”

The opinion raised the question of ownership of the copyright but concluded that the issue was irrelevant because defendant’s use of the copyrighted work was fair use, specifically a parody.

It is interesting to note that the court analyzed whether “Chewy Vuitton” and the “CL” monogram constituted copyright fair use, even though LOUIS VUITTON and the VL monogram are really trademarks, not copyrights. The issue should have been instead whether defendant’s overall design and arrangement of colors constituted fair use of the Murakami copyrighted design.

The case of MGM v. Grokster continues while everyone has moved on. Streamcast, one of the defendants, in the action was found liable under copyright contributory infringement for the Morpheus software.

Judge Wilson in Los Angeles held “evidence of Streamcast’s unlawful intent is overwhelming” in the way that the Morpheus encouraged users to violate copyright law.

Two other defendants, Grokster and Kazaa, have already settled.

Recently, the Belgian Court of First Instance ordered Google to both cease excerpting snippets of text from French and German-speaking papers; and that Google post the injunction order on the Google website.

Google contintues to scan thousands of news outlets and books and has done so since 2002.

The Belgian court was unmoved by Google’s defense that the snippet copying was intended to drive traffic to the originating news site. Google found the order to post on the Google website the Belgian website “disporportionate and unnecessary”.

Perhaps the most underreported area of copyright infringement in the last decade has been in the home craft and stitching community. The needlepointers have made wholesale, unauthorized copies of patterns; the garment and accessory (patterns which in the ’60’s we paid handsomely to meet our home economics and merit badge requirements) bespoke community have made unauthorized copies galore; and now we have a case involving those plastic cards that we pop into our high tech modern sewing machines.

The Eighth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgement for the craft store that was renting the plastic, memory cards from which the sewing machine takes the direction for producing the embroidery designs. Action Tapes, Inc. V. Mattson (Nos. 05-3309m 05-3520 (8th Cir. Aug 30, 2006).)

The plaintiff, Action Tapes, failed to register the computer software and the requisite source code in the Copyright Office under the 1990 Computer Software Rental Amendments Act.

This, a case of first impression, gives a good map of where the next software embroidery designs plaintiff needs to go to succeed next time.

Those sounds that rudely invade movies, lectures, sermons and other public quiet spaces have a more clinical name: ‘digital phonorecord deliveries’ (DPDs) and now we know that ringtones may be subject to the compulsory licensing under Section 115 of the Copyright Act. A ringtone is a ’snippet’ of music lasting 10 to 30 seconds, often taken from a larger work.

The Copyright Office, in a 35 page ruling held, that ringtones warrant payment for using a ’snippet’ of the larger piece of music:

“We find that ringtones (including monophonic and polyphonic ringtones, as well as mastertones) are phonorecords and the delivery of such by wire or wireless technology meets the definition of DPD set forth in the Copyright Act. However, there are a variety of different types of ringtones ranging from those that are simple excerpts taken from a larger musical work to ones that include additional material and may be considered original musical works in and of themselves. Ringtones that are merely excerpts of a preexisting sound
recording fall squarely within the scope of the statutory license, whereas those that contain additional material may actually be considered original derivative works and therefore outside the scope of the Section 115 license.8 Moreover, we decide that a ringtone is made and distributed for private use even though some consumers may purchase them for the purpose of identifying themselves in public. We also conclude that if a newly created ringtone is considered
a derivative work, and the work has been first distributed with the authorization of the copyright owner, then any person may use the statutory license to make and distribute the musical work in the ringtone. For those ringtones that are covered by Section 115 of the Copyright Act, all of the rights, conditions, and requirements in the Act would apply. For those ringtones that fall outside the scope of Section 115, the rights at issue must be acquired through voluntary licenses.”

The ruling can be found at the Copyright Office web page:

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ringtone-decision.pdf

This ruling is especially interesting when the Google Print Library Project is relying upon a fair use “snippets” defense to legitimize Google’s wholesale, unauthorized copying of works in copyright. If a snippet of music is subject to compulsory copyright licensing, how could a snippet of text be otherwise?

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the focus of the the United Kingdom’s “All Party Parliamentary Internet Group” (APIG); and, these are the questions addressed:

1. Does DRM distort traditional trade-offs in copyright law?
2. Do new types of ‘content sharing licenses’ need legislation to be effective?
3. How should consumers be protected when DRM systems are discontinued?
4. What legal protections should DRM systems have from those who wish to circumvent them?
5. What role does the UK Parliament have in influencing the global agenda regarding DRM?

After many meetings and some testimony from interested stakeholders and consumers, the APIG acknowledged that the issues and answers to the questions had eluded easy answer in the complicated technical and ‘hugely fascinating’ area. The following, while not answers, are the APIG recommendations:

A. There should be wider ranging exceptions to the anticircumvention prohibition than presently are on offer;

B. Labeling should be mandatory to mitigate the current consumer confusion around what is permitted and prohibited in their using the digital content that they purchase.

C. Vigilence and care will be needed to preserve the ’single market’ aspirations when confronted with the differential pricing of DRM.

D. The strong position that the government NOT make DRM mandatory.

No Halloween prank was it when three Parisian residents marched first across the Latin Quarter handing out leaflets in which they confess copyright crimes; and then they, and their entourage of 40 waving banner, marched into the Paris police station where they efforted to turn themselves into the highest ranking on-duty officer.

News of their confession campaign had preceded them; and, almost as many armed riot police stood waiting with the forty plus confessees. It was a slow process with some of these foot soldiers in the DRM Resistance offering to confess to by-standers in lieu of the senior officer’s ear. One carried a sandwich board which read ” I LENT MUSIC TO A FRIEND”, and another called out “Not only did I not use an iPod to listen to an iTune, but I also transferred a first run movie to a hand held device, and I am willing to suffer the consequences.”

This demonstation was a protest against the Digital Rights Management (DRM) policies that are creeping into the use of legally purchased songs and videos and in favor of the recent French law which is intended to force compatiblity among all listening and viewing platforms.

In July of 2006, Nestle Waters North America, launched a campaign directed at kids for its new AquaPod waters, specially shaped water bottles designed to promote water-drinking among teens. Included in the campaign were commercials that featured children not obeying their parents and characterizing the parents as “nags.” According to CARU, the self-regulatory agency that requested Nestle remove the ads from the website, one parent wrote “I strongly object to this kind of advertising, which undermines my role and responsibilities as a parent to instill values and a work ethic in my children.”

Nestle agreed to remove the troublesome ads by the end of September.

It now appears that parents are characterized as Zombies on the site. That’s much better.

The advent of the DVR has turned those hard-earned advertising dollars into mush as target customers easily zip past commercials to get to their favorite shows. And while YouTube, GoogleVideo, and other easy-upload sites have been hosting bootlegged-and-previously televised commercials since their inception, only recently has the advertising industry stopped using their legal muscle to take down these rogue postings and adopted a if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em attitude.

Indeed, actually getting consumers to affirmatively seek out commercials seems to be the new craze. And it’s working. In fact, many companies, like Burger King, are using YouTube and other social networking sites, to launch full-scale campaigns. The grainy, slightly do-it-yourself style of the ads is actually adding to their appeal. In some cases, it’s unclear whether the ads are corporate sponsored or created by individuals, another attractive component for the Gen-X-Zers whose mantra seems to be “don’t hard-sell me.”

This ad recently appeared on YouTube, to the delight of consumers. The controversy it sparked is only adding to the commercial’s viewership. Moreover, Smirnoff likely didn’t have to make a million-plus ad buy as it would have for television.

If your spidey senses are tingling because you’re wondering about alcohol beverage control laws, misleading advertising claims, CARU challenges and the like, stay tuned. Ad law is getting interesting again.

At attorney in New York is seeking class action status in a lawsuit filed against Starbuck’s for its coupon campaign that closed early after the tell-a-friend response got out of hand. The Starbucks chain offered its employees an email coupon for a free cup of coffee and allowed the employees to pass the coupon onto friends and family. Evidently having not learned from Napster, within hours, the friends and families contacted numbered in the thousands, and Starbuck’s, inundated with coupons, was forced to shut down the promotion early.

New York attorney, Peter Sullivan, sued. According to the Orange County Register, he believes that “Starbucks should account to the thousands of consumers who relied upon the advertisement, went out of their way to stop by a Starbuck’s and ended up being charged $3.00 for coffee.”

Hardly a “bait and switch” in this attorney’s opinion, (the measure by which a jury is likely to judge the Starbuck’s debacle), Starbuck’s may be able to show that it was merely an honest mistake and a good deed that got out of hand. Moreover, it’s not likely that all that many people went out of their way to get the free drink, considering there’s a Starbuck’s on most corners. Still, it would have been wise for the coffee chain to attach certain restrictions on the coupon.

Practice Pointer:
Viral marketing coupons are popular and companies endeavoring to use them should take certain precautions to insure that it is not overwhelmed with responses. Some examples are as follows:

The FTC is getting serious about children’s privacy. According to the FTC website, xanga.com (and its pricipals, Marc Ginsburg and John Hiler) agreed to pay a whopping $1 Million in civil penalties for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”).

According to the FTC, the xanga site allowed users under the age of 13 to sign up for a free account, despite the proscription on the sign-up page. Xanga failed to secure parental permission from those users, even when they used a birthdate that clearly made them underage.

Practice Pointer:
Many companies mistakenly believe that they are in compliance with COPPA guidelines if their content is adult directed or if they post a statement that no one under 13 is allowed to register on the site. In fact, companies may be in violation of COPPA in the following situations:

As the FTC continues to crack down on social sites, the fnes and corrective measures (including scrapping an entire mailing list) that the FTC will require will continue to increase. If you are uncertain whether you should be in compliance, contact us

The District Court of Nevada has found that Adrenaline Sports’ use of the mark WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS STAYS IN VEGAS infringes the use by The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (“Convention Authority”) of the slogan WHAT HAPPENS HERE STAYS HERE.

In December of 2002, the Convention Authority launched its “Vegas Stories” advertising campaign. All of the commercials ended with a display of the words WHAT HAPPENS HERE STAYS HERE. In April of 2003, defendants began using the mark WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS STAYS IN VEGAS and obtained a Nevada state registration for the trademark.

In looking at all the Sleekcraft factors, the court found that while the marks are not identical, the terms “here” and “in Vegas” are interchangeable, particularly in light of the fact that in this case, both phrases relate unequivocally to Las Vegas. “Consumers who purchase Defendant’s clothing are not likely to stop and consider the difference between ‘Here’ and ‘In Vegas’ before deciding the purchase such clothing.” Thus, even though other factors (including the marketing channels for the two marks) are distinct, the similarities in the marks coupled with the level of care a purchaser might expend in buying schwag, confusion was likely.