Previous
opinion, finding nominative fair use of some of Keurig’s marks on a motion for
preliminary injunction. Keurig sued Sturm based on Sturm’s manufacture and
sale of single-serve beverage cartridges for use in Keurig’s machines. This opinion dealt with cross motions for
summary judgment on Keurig’s patent, Lanham Act, and related state law claims,
along with some counterclaims by Sturm, and related motions.
Keurig and its licensees make K-Cups for use in its machines.
K-Cups are sold under various brand
names and produce various beverages, from coffee to hot chocolate and tea. Not all K-Cups contain ground coffee and/or a
filter, though many do. Sturm’s Grove
Square line of cartridges say: “For use by owners of Keurig coffee makers.”
Keurig’s patent claims were defeated because its patents,
which were on the machine and on a method of using the machine and not on the
cartridges, were exhausted by the sale of its machines. “Here, plaintiff is attempting to institute a
postsale restriction that prevents non-Keurig cartridges from being used in
Keurig brewers. Supreme Court precedent prevents plaintiff from undertaking
such an end run.”
Sturm sought to cancel Keurig’s trademark registrations for
K-Cup and K-Cups as generic. Keurig
argued lack of standing: it was only claiming infringement based on the Keurig
mark, and Sturm hadn’t sought to use the K-Cup mark or something similar, so it
lacked standing to sue even though it was a direct competitor that would sure
like to use the term.
Sturm’s false advertising/unfair competition claim was that
Keurig falsely represented that all of its K–Cups contain 1) a filter and 2)
ground coffee. Various Keurig brewer packages
referred to the K–Cups’ “paper filter,” “technically advanced filter” and
“internal filter,” and stated that: 1) “the K–Cup design holds fresh roasted
coffee;” “K–Cups contain the ideal grind and measure of fresh 100% Arabica
beans;” and “Each K–Cup contains the perfect grind and measure.” A press
release said, “The K–Cup serves as a mini-brewer complete with a filter and
fresh ground coffee[.]”
Though some K-Cups don’t have a filter or coffee, Keurig
argued that there was no literal falsity, but that it was rather describing the
typical or flagship product. Both parties focused on one case: In Schering-Plough
Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corp., 2010 WL 1992247 (D. Del.),
defendant advertised that its suntan lotion contained Helioplex®, defined
Helioplex publicly (though not on the bottles), and conceded that there was no
Helioplex on those bottles. The court
rejected the argument that the Helioplex formula was “sufficiently elastic” to
encompass a similar, but not identical, formula. Because defendant never provided the public a
definition elastic enough to cover the other formula, “the public has no basis
on which to perceive the ‘flexibility’ in the formula advocated by defendant.” The Schering-Plough
court found literal falsity. Here, by
contrast, Keurig argued that the consuming public already had a “flexible”
understanding that powdered beverages such as hot cocoa or chai latte don’t
include ground coffee and need not be filtered. The court agreed that the
statements were not unambiguously false.
None of the statements said that every
K-Cup had coffee and a filter, and in the context of the brewer packaging (as
opposed to packaging on cartridges) the statements were clearly “meant to
generally describe how the brewing process works; they are not meant to explain
how the process works with respect to specific beverage cartridges.”
The court turned to Keurig’s trademark claims, based on the
statement on Sturm’s packaging, “For use by owners of Keurig® coffee makers.” Puzzlingly, despite its separation of likely
confusion from nominative fair use (a defense, in the Third Circuit), and its
statement that not all the usual factors are relevant in nominative fair use
cases, the court then found that the multifactor test is clearly an issue for
the jury, making summary judgment inappropriate. (Always?
That would be odd.) Keurig had
raised genuine issues of material fact, particularly with respect to actual
confusion (it had a survey, as to which Sturm’s criticisms went to weight
rather than admissibility, along with consumer testimony/complaint
evidence). For whatever reason, this opinion
did not separately resolve the nominative fair use defense, despite the fact that the defense trumps confusion under the Third Circuit standard and that the court had previously ruled on nominative fair use.
Similarly, the court denied summary judgment on the trade
dress claims. Trade dress infringement
requires the plaintiff to show nonfunctionality plus source significance and
likely confusion. Protecting an entire
product line, however, is very difficult given the Third Circuit’s concern for
protecting competition. A plaintiff must
first demonstrate that the line has a “recognizable and consistent overall
look.” Sturm argued that there was no
consistent overall look across all K-Cup product lines; Keurig agreed, but
argued that it was seeking protection for a narrower product line. It defined
its trade dress as:
[1] an image of single-serve
beverage cartridges, with at least one beverage cartridge depicted on its side
and one beverage cartridge depicted right-side up, and a tagline below the
image of the cartridges that states they are for use in Keurig brewers, [2] an
image of spilled coffee beans, [3] an indication of the coffee's roast strength
on a graded bar with shading varying from light to dark, along with an
indication whether the coffee is caffeinated, [4] perforations for opening the
package that form an opening that is tapered in a vshape and ending in a
u-shaped tab, [5] prominent lettering displaying the name of the beverage, and
[6] another face of the packaging providing a product story.
Its Green Mountain line did contain all these features, so
there was a genuine fact issue on the existence of a consistent overall look.
Again, this motion apparently didn’t address
nonfunctionality or source signification; the court found issues of fact on
likely confusion as well given the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry and
Keurig’s evidence that Sturm’s marketing team “originally set out to model
their packaging off the Green Mountain packaging display.”
Keurig also alleged false advertising in that “For use by
owners of Keurig® coffee makers” was false and/or misleading because the Strum
cartridges often fail to work properly with Keurig brewers. The court again found genuine issues of
fact. Though the claim wasn’t literally
or unambiguously false, Keurig presented evidence suggesting that the Strum
cartridges fail at a significantly higher rate than those manufactured by
plaintiff, which would be “unanticipated and unacceptable” to consumers.
No comments:
Post a Comment