Gameologist sued Scientific for various TM and false advertising
claims, and the court granted
Scientific’s motion for summary judgment. Scientific moved for attorneys’
fees and costs.
The undisputed facts: Gameologist developed a concept for a
casino table game called Bling Bling, and secured registrations for “BLING
BLING 2002” for “entertainment in the nature of online three dice casino games”
and for “casino games and equipment therefor, namely, board games.” Gameologist entered into a license with MDI,
a company that had been acquired by Scientific, granting MDI rights to use the
mark for lottery tickets, and then the parties cancelled the license. Scientific, which is in the lottery business,
sold several thousand instant lottery tickets featuring the word “bling”
between 2007 and 2010, at least three years after the termination of the
license. Gameologist didn’t license
anyone other than MDI for any goods or services, never successfully marketed a
“Bling Bling” lottery ticket, or released a “Bling Bling” product in the
lottery industry. It only documented
four sales of a BLING BLING 2002 board game.
Summary judgment was granted because Gameologist failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact either that the plaintiff engaged in sufficient
use of its mark in commerce or that the defendants' use of the term “bling” in
connection with lottery tickets was likely to cause consumer confusion.
Defendants claimed nearly $1 million in fees. They argued that Gameologist’s claims were so
frivolous as to compel the conclusion that they were brought in bad faith. Baseless claims can indeed allow an inference
of bad faith, but mere failure to win isn’t enough. Here, Gameologist’s claims were not “so
completely without merit as to compel the conclusion that these claims were
brought in bad faith.” Disposing of them
required oral argument, additional briefing, and extensive analysis, “not the
hallmarks of a purely frivolous filing.”
Furthermore, there was no reason to doubt Gameologist’s subjective
belief in the merits of its claims.
Though Gameologist was mistaken in thinking that the terminated license
agreement indicated that Scientific misappropriated the “Bling Bling” concept
for its own commercial advantage, a flawed or misguided understanding of the
law is insufficient to constitute bad faith.
This also disposed of Scientific’s argument that a fee award was
justified based on the court’s inherent power to manage proceedings; though
Scientific argued that Gameologist’s counsel engaged in negligent or reckless
behavior by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into the merits of
the case before filing this action, a sanction in the absence of bad faith is
only allowed when the attorney’s behavior violates a court order or is otherwise
misconduct not undertaken for the client’s benefit. Here, even assuming there was
negligence/recklessness, counsel was representing the client. Nor did Rule 11 justify sanctions. Even after discovery ended, it wasn’t
“patently” clear that there was no chance of success. “While the plaintiff's assertions regarding
use in commerce and likelihood of confusion certainly were weak, these
standards are fact-dependent in their application, and the plaintiff could
reasonably have believed that it had some chance of success, albeit minimal, on
its claims.” A long shot isn’t
necessarily sanctionable. And finally,
NY GBL §360-m provided no basis for a fee award; that provision provides
remedies for plaintiffs injured by willful infringement, rather than for
parties whose adversaries acted wrongfully in conducting the litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment