The Conkle Firm Wins Injunction Prohibiting Trade Dress Infringement by Zotos

Posted by:

In September 2016, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys filed a case on behalf of Moroccanoil against Zotos International, Inc. for trademark infringement by its “Majestic Oil” products. Just four months later, CK&E obtained a Preliminary Injunction against Zotos’ competing products, and within days the case was over.

A Preliminary Injunction is a powerful litigation tool that can immediately stop a defendant from selling products during the litigation. Securing a Preliminary Injunction at the beginning of the case often brings a prompt settlement, as the defendant must decide whether to settle or to fight over the product packaging that it cannot sell.

Getting a Preliminary Injunction can be challenging because the plaintiff must show that it is likely to win the case, and that it will be irreparably harmed if the defendant’s products are allowed in the market while the case proceeds to trial. Recently, courts have made Preliminary Injunctions tougher to get by raising the standards for showing irreparable harm.

In Moroccanoil’s case, the Preliminary Injunction prohibited Zotos from selling its Majestic Oil products in packaging that was confusingly similar to Moroccanoil’s distinctive trade dress. Zotos is a subsidiary of Shiseido America.  Drawing on its knowledge of the beauty industry, CK&E’s presentation of irreparable harm to Moroccanoil’s reputation proved effective – the Court found that continued sales of Majestic Oil products would erode Moroccanoil’s premium position in the hair care market as a professional brand. The Court’s Order granting Moroccanoil’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is available here, and is published at Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Zotos Int’l, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (USDC C.D. Cal. 2017).

On the heels of the Preliminary Injunction, the parties settled the case with Zotos agreeing to pay a substantial portion of Moroccanoil’s attorneys’ fees and to drop the confusingly similar trade dress of the Majestic Oil products. In total, the case was fully resolved within 6 months of filing, and the only litigation activity was CK&E’s Motion for the Preliminary Injunction.

To learn more about the case, contact the CK&E attorneys who lead the team for Moroccanoil, Mark Kremer, Evan Pitchford and Zachary Page.

Print Friendly
0

At Critical Juncture, CK&E Defeats Consumer Class Action Against Charity

Posted by:

On October 13, 2016 Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys Eric S. Engel and Zachary Page successfully defended a charitable organization faced with an attempted consumer class action.  In Delgado v. Cars 4 Causes, a charity that accepted donations of vehicles was charged with fraud, false advertising, unfair competition and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  Plaintiff Delgado had donated a boat and trailer to Cars 4 Causes, and later complained that Cars 4 Causes did not adequately disclose its fees before providing a portion of the net proceeds from sale of the donation to Delgado’s designated third party charity.

In a class action, a critical juncture is reached when the plaintiff files a motion to ask the court to certify a class.  Without a class certification, the action is just an individual claim, often with little value on its own.  In Delgado v. Cars 4 Causes, CK&E was able to present compelling evidence and legal arguments that the claims of the prospective class members did not have sufficient common issues of fact, and that the proposed class members were not sufficiently ascertainable, to permit class certification.  When class certification is denied, courts often allow the plaintiff a second or third chance to modify his class definition or otherwise amend his claims in order to meet the class certification requirements.  But in Delgado v. Cars 4 Causes, CK&E was able to present such solid evidence and legal argument that the court was convinced of the futility of any such additional chances for the plaintiff.  As a result, the court denied Delgado’s motion for class certification
“with prejudice.”  This permanent denial of class certification ended the plaintiff’s effort to pursue a class action against Cars 4 Causes.

CK&E attorneys have substantial experience and success in defending class actions ranging from consumer unfair competition, false advertising and CLRA claims, to employment wage and hour claims.

Print Friendly
0

The Conkle Firm Secures Summary Judgment in Published Trademark Decision

Posted by:

A motion for summary judgment can be a cost-effective mechanism to efficiently resolve issues in a case by asking a judge to adjudicate certain claims or defenses before going to trial. Success on a motion for summary judgment can also reduce costs and improve outcomes by pushing the other side to settle on favorable terms and avoid the uncertainty and expense of trial.

Moroccanoil, Inc. and Marc Anthony Cosmetics, Inc., ended a legal fight over their trademarks and packaging after attorneys from Conkle, Kremer & Engel prevailed on behalf of Moroccanoil in a battle of competing summary judgment motions.

Marc Anthony’s attorneys filed several motions asking for summary judgment against Moroccanoil’s trademark and trade dress infringement claims while Conkle, Kremer & Engel brought motions for summary judgment on behalf of Moroccanoil to eliminate Marc Anthony’s defenses. While the court denied all of Marc Anthony’s motions, Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s motions successfully defeated almost all of Marc Anthony’s defenses before trial.

Marc Anthony Product Line

Marc Anthony Product Line

Marc Anthony argued that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion between the trademarks and product packaging, and attempted to strike at the heart of Moroccanoil’s brand by attacking the validity of the trademark in the Moroccanoil name and signature blue and copper orange colors. Marc Anthony claimed that Moroccanoil had improperly obtained registration for a name that was a “generic” name for argan oil, and that Moroccanoil had no ownership rights in common colors used for its packaging.

 

Moroccanoil Product Line

Moroccanoil Product Line

In a ruling recently published in the Federal case law reporter, Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California denied all of Marc Anthony’s motions, and issued significant rulings rejecting Marc Anthony’s attacks. Judge Gee specifically upheld Moroccanoil’s registration of its name and found that Moroccanoil’s trade dress is distinctive and protectable. Judge Gee also found that the majority of factors concerning the likelihood of confusion between the brands pointed toward trademark infringement. The case settled after Judge Gee’s opinion, without trial.

Judge Gee’s opinion, also published and available on Westlaw and Lexis: Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Marc Anthony Cosmetics, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 3d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2014).

 

Print Friendly
0

Prove It! Conkle Firm Attorney Publishes National Article

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney Eric S. Engel has extensive experience in matters affecting manufacturers, distributors and sales representatives.  From drafting and negotiating contracts between principals and agents to litigating disputes over such matters as commissions and trade secrets, Eric brings deep knowledge of the dynamics of the independent commissioned sales relationships to the benefit of clients across a wide range of industries.  Among his achievements is leading the trial team to a jury trial verdict and judgment of $6.2 million in treble damages against a manufacturer who cheated a commissioned sales representative.  The judgment was fully upheld on appeal in the precedent-setting decision of Reilly v. Inquest Technology, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 536 (2013).

Eric has been recognized as a “Rep Savvy Attorney” by the Manufacturers & Agents National Association (MANA).  Rep Savvy Attorneys are acknowledged for their acumen in handling disputes involving principals and agents concerning independent commissioned sales relationships.  In that role, Eric is pleased to offer his legal insight through legal articles published in MANA’s monthly magazine, Agency Sales, which receives national distribution.  Most recently, Eric wrote an article on preserving evidence to support your claims and defenses when a dispute arises:  Prove It!  Why Reps and Principals Need to Keep the Evidence, Agency Sales Magazine, May 2015

The Prove It! article focuses on the need to document the significant events that arise in parties’ commercial relationships, starting with a signed written contract that correctly states the terms of the parties’ agreement in a straightforward manner.  Then, events during performance, such as exceptions to the contractual terms and issues in obtaining performance by the other party, should be documented in plain and clear English by email or even by good old letters or faxes.  Documents that were created during the relationship should be carefully saved – a document that once existed but cannot be located can be as bad or worse than a document that never existed in the first place, as it raises the potential for spoliation of evidence penalties that can be very serious.  The Prove It! article is written for agents and principals, but the information contained in the article can be applied to almost any commercial situation.

CK&E attorneys are well versed in commercial disputes of all types and are ready to help you document your position and maintain good records of what you documented, so that you can position yourself as strongly as possible if a dispute arises.

 

Print Friendly
0

Facebook Status Update: I’ve Been Served

Posted by:

Social media is entering a new legal realm:  At least one court has recognized that a Facebook message can be used to serve a defendant with documents in litigation.  Historically, service of process has been most often accomplished by serving papers in person, or sometimes by U.S. Mail, to assure the court that a party has received due notice and an opportunity to respond to the legal proceedings.  But service of process is not always accomplished by such old fashioned means.  In a new twist, in Federal Trade Commission v. PCCARE247 Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 12 Civ. 7189 (PAE), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that the FTC could serve legal papers on defendants who were located in India by a combination of email and Facebook messages.  Service by email has been recognized in limited circumstances by other courts, and Judge Engelmayer emphasized that service of process by Facebook message would not be appropriate in every circumstance.  The court noted that the FTC had shown that the particular email and Facebook accounts were actively used by the defendants, and the defendants had already appeared in the litigation through counsel that had since withdrawn from representing them.

The rapidly expanding legal importance of social media is illustrated by the fact that less than a year earlier, in Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA, another USDC case in the Southern District of New York, Case No. 11 Civ. 6608, Judge John F. Keenan refused to accept Facebook as a means of service of process on a party.  Observing that “[s]ervice by Facebook is unorthodox to say the least,” Judge Keenan found that Facebook service would violate constitutional due process requirements, in large part because the court had not been shown to reasonable certainty that the Facebook profile actually belonged to the defendant who was being served.

Legislatures have also noticed the increasing legal importance of social media.  In February 2013, Texas State Representative Jeff Leach introduced a bill that would allow substituted service through social media websites.  If enacted, H.B. No. 1989 would allow Texas courts to prescribe as a method of service an electronic communication sent to the defendant through a social media website if the court finds:  (1) the defendant maintains a social media page on that website; (2) the profile on the social media page is the profile of the defendant; (3) the defendant regularly accesses the social media page account; and (4) the defendant could reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the electronic communication were sent to the defendant’s account.  The Texas bill is the first of its kind, and it is likely that other states will consider similar legislation.

It seems safe to say that email and Facebook messages will not be the only technological methods by which service of process will be permitted in the future.  As Judge Engelmayer observed, “history teaches that, as technology advances and modes of communication progress, courts must be open to considering requests to authorize service via technological means of then-recent vintage, rather than dismissing them out of hand as novel.”  While people may not feel ready to be informed they are being sued by messages on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, that day may not be far off.  The cautionary lesson is that email and other electronic means of communication need to be monitored for legal demands, notices or court filings, because a prompt legal response may be required.

Print Friendly
0