Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc. (1989)

See, e.g., United Drug, 248 U.S. at 97 , 39 S.Ct. at 50-51 ; Pirone, 894 F.2d at 583 ; Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (“Mere advertisement of a product by use of a mark would not constitute common law trademark use.... [Trademark rights develop when goods bearing the mark are placed in the market and followed by continuous commercial utilization.”).

Cf. Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (existence of other infringers, and thus other non-genuine goods, does not prevent trademark owner from seeking relief from one infringer); Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Co. v. Annick Goutal, S.A.R.L., 673 F.Supp. 1238, 1248 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (trademark owner not required to act against every infringing use for mark to retain protectability). 12 This is not to say that the effectiveness …

Cf. Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (existence of other infringers, and thus other non-genuine goods, does not prevent trademark owner from seeking relief from one infringer); Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Co. v. An-nick Goutal, S.AR.L., 673 F.Supp. 1238, 1248 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (trademark owner not required to act against every infringing use for mark to retain proteetability).

Although there is authority for that proposition, see Institute for Scientific Info. v. Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc., 931 F.2d 1002, 1010 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 909 , 112 S.Ct. 302 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 133 (S.D.N.Y.1989); 3A Callmann § 21.24, at 212, we believe that notion is misguided. 1 It is true that the doctrine can apply only to marks consisting of terms or images with d…

See 1 Trademarks, at 475 (the fair use defense presupposes that the mark is descriptive); see also Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey v. Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, 855 F.2d 480, 484 (7th Cir.1988) (stating that the fair use defense requires that the defendant’s use merely describe the goods or services offered); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 133 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (fair use defense unavailable when mark was suggestive).

Consumer Confusion This district has held that “[t]he ‘fair use’ defense does not encompass use that will lead to consumer confusion as to the source or origin of the goods at issue.” E.g., Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 134 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

As McCarthy states: case as to whether the gain of prosecution is worth the candle.” See 6 McCarthy § 31:19 (quoting Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)).

See Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“[Trademark rights develop when goods bearing the mark are placed in the market and followed by continuous commercial utilization.”), rejected on other grounds by Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C.

June 15, 2006) (quoting Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 127 (S.D.N.Y.1989)).

Put another way, “Common law trademark rights develop when goods bearing the mark are placed in the market and followed by continuous commercial utilization.” McDonald’s Corp. v. Burger King Corp., 107 F.Supp.2d 787, 790 (E.D.Mich.2000) (citing Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1989)) (emphasis added).

Although Tiffany is not "required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of [its] shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer,” Cullman Ventures, *489 Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989), it seems likely that aggressive pursuit of direct infringement actions against the sellers of counterfeit goods might have had a significant deterrent effect on potential future infringers on eB…

Examples of suggestive marks include “At A Glance” for calendars, see Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 119-20 (S.D.N.Y.1989), “Citibank” for an urban bank, see Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 171 F.Supp.2d 333 (S.D.N.Y.2001), “Habitat” for home furnishings, see Habitat Design Holdings, Ltd. v. Habitat, Inc., 436 F.Supp. 327, 331 (S.D.N.Y.1977), and “L’eggs” for women’s hosiery, see Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 465 …

Realty Inc., 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1048 , 2001 WL 170672 , at *12 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“the use of the same name and very similar labels on the same product must invariably cause consumer confusion”); Cullman Ventures Inc. v. Columbian Art Works Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 127 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (“the products are more than confusingly similar — they are virtually identical — and thus consumer confusion is inevitable”) (citing Mushroom Makers Inc. v. R.G.

Corp., 715 F.2d 837, 841 (3d Cir.1983); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 134 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

Searle & Co. v. Hudson Pharmaceutical Corp., 715 F.2d 837, 841 (3d Cir.1983); Zatarains, 698 F.2d at 791; Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 134 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

“Mere advertisement of a product use by use of a mark would not constitute common law trademark use. * * * Common law trademark rights develop when goods bearing the mark are placed in the market and followed by continuous commercial utilization.” Cull-man Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian AH Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1989)(emphasis added).

See Warner-Lambert Co. v. Northside Development Corp., 86 F.3d 3, 7 (2d Cir. 1996); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Co., 578 F.2d 727, 731 (8th Cir.1978)); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc. 717 F.Supp. 96, 112-113 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. Upmann Int’l, Inc., 457 F.Supp. 1090, 1100 (S.D.N.Y.1978).

Opticians, 920 F.2d 187, 195 (3d Cir.1990)); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 127 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (where marks are “virtually identical ... consumer confusion is inevitable”).

Hypertherm, 832 F.2d at 700 ; Zatarains, 698 F.2d at 791 ; Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 134 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

See, e.g., Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 583 (2d Cir.1990) (“The purpose of a trademark is to designate the source of a product and it has no existence apart from the trade ‘in connection with which the mark is employed.’ ”) (quoting United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 , 39 S.Ct. 48, 50 , 63 L.Ed. 141 (1918)); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 112 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (“Mere advertisement of a product by use of a …

In rejecting this Court’s prior conclusion that likelihood of confusion is irrelevant where the fair-use defense has been established, the panel majority did not indicate to what extent, if any, the fair-use defense is applicable when likelihood of confusion has been established, and this appears to be a novel question in this Circuit. 31 While there is some authority which holds that there can be no fair use when any likelihood of confusion has been shown, see, e.g., Cullma…

Institute for Scientific Information v. Gordon & Breach, 931 F.2d 1002, 1010 (3d Cir.) (discussing in dicta district court's determination of whether plaintiff's mark was "clearly descriptive” as necessary prerequisite to evaluating "fair use" defense), vacating and remanding 743 F.Supp. 369 (E.D.Pa.1990), cert. denied - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 302 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991); WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletics Ass'n, 926 F.2d 42, 46 (1st Cir.1991) (stating that "fair use” defense requires …

Variations in the form of the mark are protected “as long as the new and old forms create the same, continuing commercial impression.” Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 128 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

Ltd. v. Gulf & Western Corp., 644 F.2d 946, 950 (2d Cir.1981); Nikon, Inc. v. Ikon Corp., 803 F.Supp. 910, 924-25 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (Gershon, J.), aff'd, 987 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.1993); West Indian Sea Island Cotton Ass’n v. Threadtex, Inc., 761 F.Supp. 1041, 1051 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (Ward, J.); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 135 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (Conboy, J.); Cuban Cigar, 457 F.Supp. at 1099-1101 ; accord McDonald’s Corp. v. Druck & Gerner, DDS., P.C.…

Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 121 (S.D.N.Y.1989); see also Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc., 803 F.2d 166, 171 (5th Cir.1986) (“Incontestable status does not make a weak mark strong”).

Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. Upmann Intern., Inc., 457 F.Supp. 1090 , 1097 n. 28 (S.D.N.Y.1978), aff'd without op., 607 F.2d 995 (2d Cir.1979); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau, Inc., 1978 WL 21729 , 200 U.S.P.Q. 282 , 294-95 (S.D.Fla.1978).

Steinweg, Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331, 1343 (2d Cir.1975); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 135 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

Broadcast Music, Inc., v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Servs., 746 F.Supp. 320, 329 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 135 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

See Miss World (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mrs. America Pageants, 856 F.2d 1445, 1449 (9th Cir.1988) (“[A]n incontestable status does not alone establish a strong mark.”); Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 166, 171 (5th Cir.1986) (incontestable status does not preclude defendant from arguing mark is weak and not infringed; “Incontestable status does not make a weak mark strong.”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2462 , 95 L.Ed.2d 871 (1987); see also Munters Corp. v.…

See also Cullman Ventures, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

See Cullman Ventures, Jnc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 120 (S.D.N.Y.1989), disagreed with on other grounds, Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C.

“If it is found that the junior user did not adopt the mark in good faith, he will not be accorded the right to exploit the mark, even in areas previously untouched by the senior use.” Johanna Farms, Inc., 468 F.Supp. 866, 875 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (citing United Drug Co., 248 U.S. at 101 , 39 S.Ct. 48 ); see also Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp. v. Mattress Madness, 841 F.Supp. 1339, 1353-54 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (citing Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (…

See also Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (“Mere advertisement of a product by use of a mark would not constitute common law trademark use[, since] [c]ommon law trademark rights develop when goods bearing the mark are placed in the market and followed by continuous commercial utilization.”) (citations omitted).

The “talismanic test” for use in commerce remains “whether or not the use was sufficiently public to identify or distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate- segment of the public mind as those of the adopter of the mark.” See Marvel Comics, 837 F.Supp. at 548; see also Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (“[T]rademark rights develop when goods bearing the mark are placed in the market and followed by continuous commerci…

See Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 120 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (stating that “decision by the PTO is entitled to great weight.”), disagreed with on other grounds, Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C.

See, e.g., Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y.1989); 3 McCarthy ¶ 23:52.

See Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 96, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (where marks are virtually identical, consumer confusion is inevitable).

See Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Artworks, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96 , 135 n. 31 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (estoppel defense not viable where defendant failed to show it had built up goodwill in its purported mark or that an injunction would be prejudicial).

See, e.g., Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 122-27 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (the criteria used for determining the strength of the mark are similar to those used in assessing secondary meaning).

See Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 124 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (citing E.I.

See Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 112-13 (S.D.N.Y.1989). 1.

See Cullman Ventures, Inc., v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1989).