Brian Lichtenberg, LLC v. Alex & Chloe, Inc., No. CV
13–06837, 2014 WL 3698317 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2014)
Brian Lichtenberg (Brian) designs clothing and accessories,
including parodies of designer brands, such as “Homiès” as a play on “Hermès” and
“Bucci,” a parody of “Gucci,” and
distributes his products through Brian Lichtenberg, LLC. Brian alleged that his designs were
successful and worn by celebrities.
Brian’s younger brother Chris Lichtenberg (Chris) is the principal of
defendant Alex & Chloe. The
complaint alleged that Brian developed “Ballin,” a play on the luxury brand
“Balmain,” in January 2012. Chris
allegedly did part-time graphic design and promotional work related to the
Ballin project, with access to confidential lists of Brian’s customers and
industry contacts.
Brian alleged that Chris copied and claimed ownership of the
“Ballin” design, contacted Brian’s manufacturer and requested that products
identical to Brian’s be made under the A & C label, and used Brian’s
confidential customer lists to sell the A & C version of the “Ballin”
items. He listed Ballin products for sale on the A&C website before Brian’s
products came to market. Chris allegedly
repeatedly claimed to own the Ballin design, contacted Brian’s buyers, stated that
Brian’s Ballin products were counterfeits, and asked retailers to stop selling
them. He also allegedly claimed that
Brian had stolen Ballin and other parody designs from him. Social media sites allegedly responded to
Chris’s request by removing images of Brian’s Ballin apparel posted to Brian’s
pages. A&C then allegedly expanded
to include other products similar to Brian’s, and appropriated photographs of
celebrities wearing Brian’s products, claiming on the A & C website and
elsewhere that those celebrities endorsed A & C.
The court denied a preliminary injunction on Brian’s trade
dress claims. Brian’s alleged trade
dress was comprised of:
(1) humorous logos parodying famous
designer names; (2) large block lettering mimicking the font used by the
designer; (3) gold, gold foil, pink, pink foil, white, and black lettering on a
red, hot pink, orange, black, bright blue, neon yellow, or lavender fabric; (4)
40–weight cotton “with a certain ... cut, and dying and (enzyme) washing
process;” (5) screen printing (with respect to shirts); (6) a “bulky and
shapeless look;” (7) labels of a certain material, construction, and size; (8)
woven stitching; (9) hangtags with a Century Gothic font; and (10) embroidery
(with respect to hats).
The court found insufficient evidence of secondary
meaning. Declarations by Brian and his
head of sales indicated that Brian spent millions of dollars on marketing, but
advertising expenses alone can’t establish secondary meaning. Mere claims by plaintiff and his personal associates
that his that advertising has led consumers and celebrities to “instantly
recognize the BLTEE Line” by “feel and appearance,” absent further factual
support, were insufficient. Additional
declarations from an investor, two boutique owners, a fashion stylist, and a
fashion model, all of whom had known Brian for years, were of no help. They didn’t shed light on the perceptions of
the consuming public. Even if they
showed that consumers generally liked the products, that didn’t establish
secondary meaning. This also defeated the (in my opinion sanctionable) federal
dilution claim.
Mark McKenna, here’s another case about §43(a)(1)(A) versus
(a)(1)(B)! Brian alleged false
endorsement based on press and publicity photos of over a dozen celebrities wearing
Brian’s products, copied and used on the A&C website. The court treated this as a §43(a)(1)(B)
false advertising claim. (Which actually
makes some sense, because Brian doesn’t have standing to bring a true false
endorsement claim; only the celebrities do.)
The court found that Brian had shown likely success on this
claim. While Chris argued that he’d only
made statements about the Ballin design, not the Ballin mark, the court still
found falsity. For example, one A&C
website image depicted a celebrity wearing one of Brian’s t-shirts in a music
video. The accompanying text identified the celebrity as “wearing an ALEX &
CHLOE original Ballin Paris design.” The
court called this “false by implication or, at best, likely to mislead
consumers.” (There’s a Dastar issue here—but I think it may cut
against the defendant, since Dastar
says that consumers don’t generally care who came up with a work/design,
outside the context of more traditionally expressive media.) Plus, not all of defendants’ statements
referred to the “design.” For example, a
fashion model posed for photos in one of Brian’s sweatshirts and gave Brian
permission to use the photos. Later, the image appeared on A & C’s product
sales page as a “‘Ballin Paris’ Printed Fleece Sweatshirt by Alex & Chloe.”
“Consumers’ confusion and displeasure, and harm to
Plaintiffs, is evident from numerous internet posts, as well as from
declarations from retailers whose customers demanded refunds.” This showed likely success on the
merits. Similarly, Brian offered
extensive evidence of Chris’s intentional interference with Brian’s contracts
with his customers, including urging them to switch to A&C products and
sending C&Ds to sellers of Brian’s products. Even if plaintiffs lacked a protectable trade
dress, and even if A&C released its products first, intentional
interference was still possible, and here plaintiffs were likely to succeed. So
too with their trade secret claim based on Chris’s alleged use of confidential
customer lists. And so too with the
defamation claim, given Brian’s evidence that he developed the Ballin design
and Chris’s public statements that Brian “stole” the design and was selling
counterfeit merchandise. Defendants’ conclusory statements that the allegations
were true were insufficient.
Given likely success on the merits on these claims, the
remaining factors of the preliminary injunction inquiry were met. “Evidence of
loss of control over business reputation and damage to goodwill” was sufficient
to establish irreparable harm. “Defendants’ misleading posts about the origins
of certain products and suggestions that Brian is a thief, discussed above,
certainly have a negative impact on Brian’s reputation and goodwill, and are
continuing. Enjoining such acts would serve the public interest, and would not
impose any undue hardship upon Defendants.”
(Note that the court doesn’t discuss the traditional reluctance of
courts to enjoin defamation. It seems
that defendants may not have contested the defamation claims sufficiently. However, the injunctive remedy granted also does not actually seem to cover the defamatory but non-intentional interference with contract behavior.)
Defendants were enjoined from using pictures of anyone
wearing plaintiffs’ products “in any manner that would lead others to believe
that such persons are wearing Defendants’ products”; using plaintiffs’
customer, distributor, or manufacturer lists; and contacting plaintiffs’
customers or prospective customers “for the purpose of encouraging such persons
or entities not to do business with Plaintiffs and/or not to purchase or sell
Plaintiffs’ products.”
No comments:
Post a Comment