throbber
Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 25
`
`MARA FOX,
`
`
`
`
`OPINION
`05 Civ. 3872 (DC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`DOC #: __________________
`DATE FILED: __7/31/08____
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`DESSERT BEAUTY, INC.,
`:
`Plaintiff,
`:
` - against -
`:
`:
`:
`Defendant.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`MARA FOX,
`:
`:
`Third-Party
`Plaintiff,
`:
` - against -
`:
`SEPHORA, INC. et al.,
`:
`Third-Party
`:
`Defendants.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`APPEARANCES:
`(see last page)
`CHIN, District Judge
`At the heart of this litigation are two words: "love
`potion." Defendant and third-party plaintiff Mara Fox registered
`the trademark LOVE POTION for perfumed essential oils in 1995 and
`filed a declaration of incontestability for the LOVE POTION mark
`in 2001. In 2004, plaintiff Dessert Beauty, Inc. ("DBI")
`launched a line of beauty products that included two fragrance
`products described as "love potion fragrance" and "belly button
`love potion fragrance." At issue is whether DBI's use of the
`words "love potion" infringed Fox's LOVE POTION trademark, or
`whether the use was fair use, immune from liability.
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 25
`
`DBI seeks a declaratory judgment that it did not
`violate Fox's trademark; it also seeks to cancel the LOVE POTION
`trademark registration on the ground that it is generic. DBI
`additionally sues Fox for intentional interference with business
`relations arising from Fox's attempts to protect her trademark.
`In turn, Fox asserts claims against Sephora, Inc. ("Sephora") and
`other unnamed third-party defendants for trademark infringement
`under the Lanham Act and California law.
`The parties cross-move for summary judgment. For the
`reasons that follow, I conclude that DBI's use of "love potion"
`constituted fair use. Thus, DBI's motion is granted to the
`extent that judgment will be entered declaring that DBI did not
`engage in trademark infringement. Fox's motion for summary
`judgment is granted to the extent that DBI's claim that she
`intentionally interfered with its business relations is
`dismissed; her motion is otherwise denied.
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Facts
`The following facts are drawn from affidavits, attached
`exhibits, and deposition testimony submitted by the parties. For
`purposes of these cross-motions, the facts are construed in the
`light most favorable to Fox, except with respect to DBI's
`intentional interference with business relations claim.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 3 of 25
`
`1.
`
`Fox's Love Potion Perfume
`Fox created the "Love Potion Perfume" in 1990. In
`1995, she registered the words "love potion" for "perfumed
`essential oils for personal use" with the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office ("USPTO"). (Fox Decl. Ex. A). In 2001, Fox
`filed a declaration of incontestability with the USPTO for the
`mark LOVE POTION. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5).
`Fox concocted the Love Potion Perfume for a friend who
`"was having no luck in finding a relationship." (Krages Decl.
`Ex. 5). According to Fox's website www.lovepotionperfume.com,
`entitled "Love Potion: Magickal Perfumerie & Gift Shoppe," her
`Love Potion Perfume is the "first Magical, Mystical, Wearable
`Love Potion," "[c]omprised from Ancient Aphrodisiac Recipes."
`(Id.). Fox claims that she uses "the strongest ingredients known
`to inspire feelings of Love, Lust, Passion and Desire" and that
`her Love Potion Perfume "REALLY IS A Love Potion." (Id.
`(emphasis in original)).
`The Love Potion Perfumes are sold in a clear bottle and
`packaged in a clear plastic bag and an organza pouch :
`1
`2
`
`1
`
`"Organza" is a "sheer, stiff fabric of silk or
`synthetic material." The American Heritage Dictionary 876 (2d
`College Ed. 1991).
`Although Fox contends that she has used a variety of
`packaging over the years, she does not dispute that her products
`at one time were packaged in clear bottles and organza pouches as
`shown above. Furthermore, she has not produced any evidence of
`other types of packaging.
`
`2
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 4 of 25
`
`(Id. Ex. 4). A label with the words "Love Potion Perfume" is
`affixed to the bottle.
`2.
`DBI's Beauty Products
`In 2004, DBI launched a line of beauty products that
`were endorsed by celebrity Jessica Simpson. (Shimanoff Decl. Ex.
`16). As part of DBI's advertising and marketing campaign,
`Simpson told the story that "every time [her then husband] would
`kiss [her] lips or skin, he would taste [her] lipstick, body
`lotion, and perfume -- and hate it." (Id.). Thus, the DBI
`products were created to "smell and taste good" and were
`advertised as "lickable, tasteable, and . . . kissable." (Id.).
`Products such as the "Whipped Body Cream with Candy Sprinkles,"
`"Chocolicious Body Gloss," and "Powdered Sugar Body Shimmer" were
`named after ingredients used to make desserts to suggest their
`"edible nature." (Id.; Tr. 5). 3
`
`References to "Tr." are to the transcript of the oral
`argument on July 15, 2008.
`
`3
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 5 of 25
`
`In a catalogue entitled "Menu," DBI listed its products
`available in the Dessert Beauty line, such as "Bath Bubbles" and
`"Sugar Scrub." (Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 16). Two fragrance products
`are included. The "Love Potion Fragrance" was offered in three
`varieties: "Creamy, Juicy & Dreamy." (Id.). The "Belly Button
`Love Potion Fragrance," offered in "Creamy" and "Juicy," was
`intended to be applied to the navel and sold in a "roll-on"
`container. (Id.). The packages and bottles referred to the
`fragrance products as the "deliciously kissable love potion
`fragrance" or the "deliciously kissable belly button love
`potion." (Krages Decl. Ex. A; Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 13).
`
`(Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 13).
`DBI's trademark was DESSERT, which was indicated as
`such by the trademark symbol "TM" next to the word "Dessert" on
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 6 of 25
`
`all of its packaging and advertising materials. Its logo
`consisted of a pink lipstick stain and the mark DESSERT inside a
`black circle. Beneath the circle was the phrase "Sexy Girls Have
`Dessert" in script. The DESSERT trademark, in conjunction with
`the lipstick stain logo and catch phrase (the DBI "indicia"), was
`displayed prominently on every DBI product and used in all
`advertising materials.
`3.
`Fox's Actions to Protect Her Trademark
`Fox's lawyer routinely issued cease and desist letters
`to manufacturers and retailers that sold perfume products
`containing the term "love potion." (See Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 1).
`The record contains approximately 80 such letters sent to
`different vendors between 2000 and 2006.
`After learning in April 2004 that DBI was using the
`words "love potion" for its fragrance products, Fox's lawyer
`demanded that Randi Schinder, co-creator of the Dessert Beauty
`products, and David Suliteanu, president of Sephora USA LLC,
`"[c]ease and desist from any further use of the [LOVE POTION]
`mark" and "[p]rovide an accounting of any and all sales made to
`date." (Id. Ex. 17; see also id. Ex. 16). DBI's lawyer, on
`behalf of both DBI and Sephora, responded in a letter dated April
`23, 2004, stating that DBI's "use of the term 'love potion' is
`fair use within § 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act." (Id. Ex. 17).
`After exchanging several letters regarding whether DBI's use of
`"love potion" was fair use, DBI voluntarily agreed to "cease and
`desist from the use of the term 'love potion,'" "change its
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 7 of 25
`
`website as soon as possible," and "delete the term 'love potion'
`from all bottles, packaging and advertising." (Id.). DBI
`steadfastly maintained, however, that its "use of 'love potion'
`in phrases like 'deliciously kissable love potion fragrance'
`[was] merely descr[i]ptive." (Id.). Despite DBI's agreement not
`to use "love potion," the parties continued to dispute the
`sufficiency of DBI's actions in removing the words "love potion"
`from its fragrance products.
`In addition to direct communication with DBI and
`Sephora, Fox filed a report with eBay's Verified Rights Owner
`("VeRO") Program, which allows intellectual property owners to
`flag listings on eBay that purportedly infringe their trademark
`rights. (Fox Decl. ¶ 19).
`Fox also waged a public campaign on her website, which
`contained the following message:
`WE ARE A SMALL COMPANY DEFENDING OUR RIGHTFUL
`INCONTESTABLE TRADEMARKS AGAINST A
`CORPORATION THAT THINKS THEY CAN BULLY US
`BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD IT. IF YOU FEEL YOU
`MUST SEND AN ANGRY LETTER, PLEASE DIRECT IT
`TO THEM FOR THEIR ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, UNETHICAL
`BUSINESS PRACTICE.
`
`(Shimanoff Decl. II Ex. 5 (emphasis in original)). She hired a
`4
`public relations company, which issued a press release in January
`2006 about this lawsuit and DBI's alleged infringement of Fox's
`trademark. (Id. Ex. 1). The press release, quoting Fox's third-
`party complaint, stated that DBI "willfully and maliciously
`
`4
`
`"Shimanoff Decl. II" refers to Shimanoff's declaration
`submitted with DBI's opposition to Fox's motion for summary
`judgment.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 8 of 25
`
`initiate[d] a campaign to flood the major internet search engines
`with key word spamming to direct any inquiries of LOVE POTION to
`their retailers." (Id.). Fox was quoted, stating that "in the
`first month following [DBI]'s launch, her sales were reduced by
`96%. The following month, they were down 97%." (Id.). The
`press release also indicated that DBI "reported sales exceeding
`$120 million dollars." (Id.). This press release was reported
`by numerous media publications, including the New York Post,
`which wrote that "the bimbonic blonde and her business partners
`ripped off [Fox's] trademarked cosmetics brand." (Id. ¶ 4,
`Ex. 1).
`B.
`Procedural History
`DBI commenced this action against Fox and Love Potion
`LLC for: (1) a judgment declaring that DBI did not infringe
`Fox's trademark, (2) cancellation of Fox's LOVE POTION
`registration, and (3) damages for intentional interference with
`business relations. Fox filed counterclaims against DBI and a
`third-party complaint against Sephora and others, asserting: (1)
`trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and state law, (2)
`false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and (3)
`interference with prospective economic advantage.
`In April 2006, DBI and Sephora filed their first motion
`for summary judgment to dismiss all Fox's claims and to cancel
`Fox's trademark registration for "Love Potion." In a memorandum
`decision issued on August 7, 2007, I granted the motion as to
`Fox's tortious interference with economic advantage claim, but
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 9 of 25
`
`denied the motion as to Fox's federal and state trademark
`infringement claims and false designation claim. See Dessert
`Beauty, Inc. v. Fox, No. 05 Civ. 3872 (DC), 2007 WL 2244870
`(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2007). I also denied the motion to the extent
`DBI sought to cancel Fox's registration of the LOVE POTION mark.
`Both parties now cross-move for summary judgment. DBI
`and Sephora move again to dismiss Fox's remaining claims on the
`ground that there is no trademark infringement or, in the
`alternative, that DBI's use of the term "love potion" is fair
`use. Fox moves to dismiss DBI's complaint in its entirety. I
`heard argument on July 15, 2008 and reserved decision.
`DISCUSSION
`For the following reasons, I conclude that DBI's use of
`the term "love potion" is fair use within the meaning of section
`33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act. Accordingly, I do not address the
`5
`parties' cross-motions with respect to the trademark infringement
`claims and proceed directly to the fair use analysis. Then I
`turn to the part of Fox's motion for summary judgment seeking
`dismissal of DBI's tortious interference claim.
`A.
`Summary Judgment Standard
`Summary judgment is appropriate only where the parties'
`submissions "show that there is no genuine issue as to any
`
`5
`
`There is "substantial congruence in California
`trademark law and the Lanham Act," and the fair use analysis for
`claims under the Lanham Act applies to claims under California
`law as well. Bell v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 539 F. Supp. 2d
`1249, 1261 (S.D. Cal. 2008). Accordingly, I address only the
`federal claim.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 10 of 25
`
`material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v.
`Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Summary judgment is
`inappropriate if the Court, resolving all ambiguities and drawing
`all reasonable inferences against the moving party, finds that
`the dispute about a material fact is "such that a reasonable jury
`could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v.
`Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).
`B.
`Fair Use
`The fair use doctrine permits the use of protected
`marks to describe certain aspects of goods, but not as marks to
`identify the goods. Even if a party's conduct would otherwise
`constitute infringement of another's trademark, fair use provides
`an absolute defense to liability. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4);
`see also Cosmetically Sealed Indus., Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's
`USA Co., 125 F.3d 28, 30 (2d Cir. 1997); Something Old, Something
`New, Inc. v. QVC, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 7450 (SAS), 1999 WL 1125063,
`at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1999). Section 33(b)(4) of the Lanham
`Act defines fair use as "a use, otherwise than as a mark, . . .
`of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and
`in good faith only to describe the goods or services of [a]
`party." § 1115(b)(4). Accordingly, to avail itself of the fair
`use defense, DBI must have made use of Fox's LOVE POTION mark
`"(1) other than as a mark, (2) in a descriptive sense, and (3) in
`good faith." EMI Catalogue P'ship v. Hill, Holliday, Connors,
`Cosmopulos Inc., 228 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2000). I address these
`elements in turn.
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 11 of 25
`
`1.
`
`Non-Trademark Use
`A trademark use occurs when a mark indicates the source
`or origin of consumer products. See Tommy Hilfiger Licensing,
`Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410, 414 (S.D.N.Y.
`2002) (defining non-trademark use in the context of trademark
`parody). Here, DBI did not use "love potion" as a trademark
`because the source of its fragrance products was not identified
`by that term. Instead, the source was indicated by its own
`trademark DESSERT in conjunction with the lip stain logo and
`catch phrase "Sexy Girls Have Dessert," which were prominently
`displayed on all DBI products. Words on a product's packaging
`generally do not serve as a trademark where there is also a
`conspicuously visible trademark that clearly serves that
`function. See Cosmetically Sealed, 125 F.3d at 30-31 (the "non-
`trademark use of the challenged phrase [is] evidenced by the fact
`that the source of [plaintiffs'] product is clearly identified by
`the prominent display of [their] own trademarks"). Moreover, DBI
`placed a TM symbol only next to the word "Dessert," highlighting
`the non-trademark use of "love potion." The TM symbol was not
`placed next to the words "love potion."
`Moreover, DBI used the words "love potion" within the
`phrase "Love Potion Fragrance" or "Belly Button Love Potion
`Fragrance" to identify particular products within the DBI line.
`These names are listed in the "Menu" of beauty products along
`with the descriptive or generic names of other products such as
`"Bath Bubbles" and "Sugar Scrub." (Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 16). The
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 12 of 25
`
`product names served to distinguish the love potion fragrance
`products from other DBI products rather than to distinguish them
`from non-DBI products. (Id.).
`Fox argues that a product name can constitute trademark
`use. (See, e.g., Tr. 14). Product names, however, generally do
`not amount to trademark use because such names, as a "common
`descriptive name of a product," are generic, San Francisco Arts &
`Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 532 n.7
`(1987), and generic terms cannot be trademarked under the Lanham
`Act, see, e.g., Papercutter, Inc. v. Fay's Drug Co., 900 F.2d
`558, 562 (2d Cir. 1990). Product names identify a category or
`class of goods, but do not indicate the source of the goods. For
`instance, "perfume" is a product name that indicates that the
`product emits a fragrant scent when sprayed, but the word
`"perfume" does not indicate who manufactured the particular
`product. Accordingly, at least two courts in this Circuit have
`held that "regardless of whether or not a person knows that [a
`given word] is a trade-mark, if he uses the trade-mark word as
`the name of the product, it is used in a descriptive sense and is
`therefore generic." Am. Thermos Prods. Co. v. Aladdin Indus.,
`Inc., 207 F. Supp. 9, 20 (D.C. Conn. 1962); see also W.R. Grace &
`Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., 581 F. Supp. 148, 154-55 (S.D.N.Y.
`1983) (holding that a product name is not a trademark use, but is
`generic). Hence, because DBI used the words "love potion" not to
`describe the source of the product but as a product name in a
`generic, descriptive sense, the use was not trademark use.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 13 of 25
`
`2.
`
`Descriptive Use
`Fox argues that "love potion" can never be used in a
`descriptive sense when referring to perfume products because
`"love potion" is "a liquid consumable that is drunk" and "has not
`been used in its common parlance to describe [or] refer to a
`fragrance." (Tr. 18-19). Fox thus raises the question whether
`the term "love potion" can describe a product that is not, in
`actuality, a love potion. I conclude that it may for purposes of
`the fair use defense.
`A use of a mark is descriptive if "the words were used
`to describe the 'ingredients, quality or composition' of a
`product, not the source of the product." JA Apparel Corp. v.
`Abboud, No. 07 Civ. 7787 (THK), 2008 WL 2329533, at *19 (S.D.N.Y.
`Jun. 5, 2008) (citing In Re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549,
`551 (C.C.P.A. 1968)). Though the Lanham Act recognizes the fair
`use defense where the name or term is used "to describe the
`goods," § 1115(b)(4), the Second Circuit has explained that the
`statute "has not been narrowly confined to words that describe a
`characteristic of the goods, such as size or quality. Instead,
`[the Second Circuit has] recognized that the phrase permits use
`of words or images that are used, in Judge Leval's helpful
`expression, in their 'descriptive sense.'" Cosmetically Sealed,
`125 F.3d at 30 (citing Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C. Johnson & Son,
`Inc., 70 F.3d 267, 269 (2d Cir. 1995)).
`For instance, the Second Circuit has held the fair use
`defense applicable to a clothing manufacturer's use of the phrase
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 14 of 25
`
`"Come on Strong" as "describing a presumably desirable effect" of
`its menswear, even though articles of clothing do not literally
`"come on strong." B & L Sales Assocs. v. H. Daroff & Sons, Inc.,
`421 F.2d 352, 354 (2d Cir. 1970). The Second Circuit has also
`held that even though "the words 'Seal it with a Kiss' do not
`describe a characteristic of the defendants' [lipstick], they
`surely are used in their 'descriptive sense' -- to describe an
`action that the sellers hope consumers will take, using their
`product." Cosmetically Sealed, 125 F.3d at 30. In Jean Patou,
`Inc. v. Jacqueline Cochran, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 861 (S.D.N.Y.
`1962), aff'd, 312 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1963), the plaintiff was the
`owner of the registered trademark JOY for use on perfumes and
`sought to enjoin the defendant from using the phrase "Joy of
`Bathing" on its bath products. But the court concluded that the
`challenged phrase was "designed to suggest the pleasure which
`will accompany the use of defendant's product in one's bath, and
`thus performs a descriptive function." Jean Patou, 201 F. Supp.
`at 865. Accordingly, when determining whether a use is
`descriptive, courts in the Second Circuit consider not only
`"whether the mark used describes certain aspects of the alleged
`infringer's own goods," but also "whether the mark as used
`describes an action the alleged infringer hopes consumers will
`make of its product." EMI Catalogue, 228 F.3d at 64-65.
`Viewed in this broad sense, it is clear that DBI used
`"love potion" descriptively. First, the words, by themselves,
`are descriptive. Dictionary.com defines "love potion" as a
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 15 of 25
`
`product "believed to arouse love or sexual passion toward a
`specified person." (Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 7). See Radio Channel
`Networks, Inc. v. Broadcast.com, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 4799 (RPP),
`1999 WL 124455, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 1999) (consulting
`dictionary definitions when determining whether term "radio
`channel" was used in the descriptive sense). Although the words
`"love potion" do not describe an actual quality of DBI's
`fragrance products, they are used to describe the effects that
`the products may have on whoever "kisses" or "tastes" the
`products worn by the wearer, or at least to describe the purpose
`with which consumers will use the product.
`Second, the term "love potion" is a common term in the
`English language. The very fact that "love potion" is defined in
`several dictionaries as a product used for the purpose of
`attracting the opposite sex reflects the ordinary usage of the
`term to describe products used for those purposes. Moreover, the
`record contains approximately 80 cease and desist letters that
`were sent by Fox, indicating that "love potion" was commonly used
`by many sellers in the cosmetics industry to describe a product's
`purported effect on others.
`Third, that many merchants received warning letters
`from Fox for using "love potion" demonstrates that there is no
`other reasonably available word to describe the meaning captured
`by the term "love potion," namely, that the opposite sex will be
`attracted to the wearer of the product. Descriptive use is
`evident in such situations "[w]here a mark incorporates a term
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 16 of 25
`
`that is the only reasonably available means of describing a
`characteristic of another's goods." EMI Catalogue, 228 F.3d at
`65; see also New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ'g, Inc., 971
`F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1992); 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and
`Unfair Competition § 10:14 (4th Ed. 1999) ("Since the use of a
`descriptive title cannot serve to prevent others from using the
`title in a descriptive, non-trademark sense, others may be able
`to use the title as the only term available."). "To expect
`[plaintiffs] to use unwieldy or long terms would be contrary to
`the purpose of the fair use defense, [and Fox] cannot monopolize
`words and images that are used descriptively." Something Old,
`1999 WL 1125063, at *7.
`Finally, descriptive use is often evident in the manner
`of use, such as the "physical nature of the use in terms of size,
`location, and other characteristics in comparison with the
`appearance of other descriptive matter or other trademarks," EMI
`Catalogue, 228 F.3d at 65 (quoting Restatement (Third) of
`Unfair Competition § 28 cmt. c. (1995)), as well as "the presence
`of the defendant's own trademark in conjunction with the
`descriptive term," § 28 cmt. c; see also Something Old, 1999 WL
`1125063, at *6 ("In determining descriptive use, the total
`context of the allegedly infringing term is considered, including
`lettering, type style, size and placement."). The factors noted
`above that indicated non-trademark usage -- such as the prominent
`use of the DESSERT brand name -- also demonstrate DBI's
`descriptive use of "love potion." For instance, the presence of
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 17 of 25
`
`a TM symbol next to DESSERT, contrasted with the absence of the
`symbol next to the words "love potion," suggests not only that
`"love potion" on the DBI products was a non-trademark use, but
`also that it constituted descriptive use. Moreover, on all the
`packaging, the words "love potion" were placed off-center and
`printed in a smaller font size than the trademark DESSERT. Most
`indicative of descriptive use is that "love potion" was used with
`other words to form a phrase describing the products.
`3.
`Good Faith
`Fair use analysis also requires a finding that
`defendants used the protected mark in good faith. A "lack of
`good faith [is equated] with the subsequent user's intent to
`trade on the good will of the trademark holder by creating
`confusion as to source or sponsorship." EMI Catalogue, 228 F.3d
`at 66. In analyzing the good faith element, "the focus of the
`inquiry is . . . whether defendant in adopting its mark intended
`to capitalize on plaintiff's good will." Id. Furthermore,
`"[b]ecause the good faith inquiry in a fair use analysis
`necessarily concerns the question whether the user of a mark
`intended to create consumer confusion as to source or
`sponsorship, . . . the same contextual considerations [evaluated
`in a likelihood of confusion analysis for a trademark
`infringement claim] apply to a court's analysis of good faith in
`the fair use defense." Id. at 66-67. Thus, "a court must take
`into account the overall context in which the marks appear and
`the totality of factors that could cause consumer confusion" just
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 18 of 25
`
`as it would "[w]hen considering the likelihood of confusion and
`assessing the similarity of two marks." Id. at 66. In addition,
`the court, on a motion for summary judgment, must consider all
`evidence in the record pointing to the alleged infringer's both
`good and bad faith. Id. at 76.
`Turning to the evidence in the record, Fox argues that
`the following facts raise a material issue for trial concerning
`plaintiffs' alleged bad faith: first, DBI did not conduct a
`trademark search prior to the launch of its beauty products; and
`second, both DBI and Sephora failed to take necessary action to
`discontinue the sale of allegedly infringing products after
`receiving Fox's cease and desist letters.
`With respect to DBI's failure to conduct a trademark
`search, it is well established that "failure to perform an
`official trademark search . . . does not, standing alone, prove
`. . . bad faith." Savin Corp. v. Savin Group, 391 F.3d 439, 460
`(2d Cir. 2004) (citing Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159
`F.3d 739, 746 (2d Cir. 1998)) (internal citations omitted); see
`also EMI Catalogue, 228 F.3d at 67; Car-Freshner, 70 F.3d at 270.
`Even if plaintiffs had prior knowledge of Fox's trademark, that
`fact would not demonstrate lack of good faith without additional
`evidence supporting an inference of bad faith. See, e.g., Savin
`Corp., 391 F.3d at 460; Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59
`F.3d 384, 397 (2d Cir. 1995); EMI Catalogue, 228 F.3d at 67; Car-
`Freshner, 70 F.3d at 270. Thus, as a matter of law, DBI's
`failure to conduct a trademark search prior to using "love
`potion," standing alone, does not demonstrate bad faith.
`-18-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 19 of 25
`
`Fox also points to DBI's alleged failure to discontinue
`
`the sale of products with the words "love potion" after she
`provided notice of the alleged trademark infringement. But the
`"failure to completely abandon the use after receiving a cease
`and desist letter is insufficient to support an allegation of bad
`faith" as a matter of law. Something Old, 1999 WL 1125063, at
`*7; see also Wonder Labs, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 728 F.
`Supp. 1058, 1064 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (failure to abort advertising
`campaign upon receipt of cease and desist letter "is absolutely
`no proof that the defendant acted in bad faith to capitalize on
`the plaintiff's trademark"). Notice of Fox's trademark rights --
`either by her trademark registration or the cease and desist
`letters -- "does not preclude use of the words contained in
`[Fox's] registered mark in their primary[, descriptive] sense,"
`Wonder Labs, 728 F. Supp. at 1064, especially where DBI believed
`that its use was descriptive, see Something Old, 1999 WL 1125063,
`at *7. Indeed, the numerous letters exchanged between the
`parties indicate that DBI had maintained the position that its
`use of "love potion" was fair use. (See, e.g., 4/23/04 Letter
`("our client's use of the term 'love potion' is fair use");
`5/24/04 Letter (same)). In its June 4, 2004 letter to Fox, DBI
`6
`"for business reasons, [agreed] to cease and desist from the use
`of the term 'love potion,'" but nevertheless maintained that its
`"use of 'love potion' in phrases like 'deliciously kissable love
`potion fragrance' [was] merely descr[i]ptive." (6/4/04 Letter).
`
`6
`
`These letters are found in Shimanoff Decl. Ex. 17.
`-19-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 20 of 25
`
`These letters show that DBI believed that its use of "love
`potion" was descriptive.
`On the record before the Court, no reasonable jury
`could find bad faith; to the contrary, a reasonable jury could
`only conclude that DBI acted in good faith. An indication of
`good faith is "the display of defendant's own name or trademark
`in conjunction with the mark it allegedly infringes." EMI
`Catalogue, 228 F.3d at 67, citing Cosmetically Sealed, 125 F.3d
`at 30. This is so because the use of a distinct trademark
`minimizes any likelihood of confusion as to the source or
`sponsorship of a product. See W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v.
`Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 573 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Where a similar
`mark is used in conjunction with a company name, the likelihood
`of confusion may be lessened."). As discussed above, all DBI
`products had the DESSERT trademark and indicia, reflecting DBI's
`efforts to differentiate its products in the marketplace rather
`than to trade on Fox's, or any other seller's, good will.
`Furthermore, in light of "the overall context in which
`the marks appear and the totality of factors that could cause
`consumer confusion," EMI Catalogue, 228 F.3d at 66-67, the
`dissimilarities between the products are patently obvious as to
`dispel any inference that DBI was trying to pass its products as
`one of Fox's Love Potion Perfumes or to confuse consumers as to
`source or sponsorship. The only similarity is the term "love
`potion," which alone is insufficient to establish a likelihood of
`confusion. See Clairol, Inc. v. Cosmair, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 811,
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 21 of 25
`
`815 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("the mere fact that two marks may share
`words in common is not determinative" in assessing likelihood of
`confusion).
`The differences between the products and their marks,
`however, are manifest -- a fact that Fox herself concedes. (Tr.
`19). "Love potion" is written in different fonts on the parties'
`products; on the DBI labels, "deliciously kissable love potion
`fragrance" is written in sans serif font, but "Love Potion
`Perfume" is written in cursive. In addition, "Love Potion
`Perfume" is written on a white label strung to the perfume
`bottle. In contrast, the DBI product names and trademark are
`emblazoned directly on the bottles and packaging. Moreover,
`Fox's Love Potion Perfumes are sold in a diamond-shaped bottle
`and packaged in a clear plastic bag and organza pouch. On the
`other hand, DBI's love potion fragrance is packaged in a long,
`cylindrical tube with a pumping device; its belly button love
`potion fragrance is sold in a roll-on container and packaged in a
`rectangular box.
`Notwithstanding both parties' usage of the words "love
`potion," a reasonable jury could only find that it was not likely
`that consumers would be confused. In short, no reasonable jury
`could conclude that plaintiff acted in bad faith to capitalize on
`Fox's trademark. Indeed, the evidence only shows plaintiff's
`good faith. Because there is no material issue warranting trial
`with respect to the fair use defense, plaintiff's motion for
`summary judgment on the trademark claims is granted and Fox's
`cross motion is denied.
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`Case 1:05-cv-03872-DC Document 98 Filed 07/31/08 Page 22 of 25
`
`C.
`
`Intentional Interference with Business Relations Claim
`The remaining claim is plaintiff's intentional
`interference with business relations claim against Fox. To
`sustain a claim for tortious interference with a business
`relation or prospective economic advantage, "a plaintiff

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket