Sazerac Brands, LLC v. Peristyle, LLC, --- F.3d ---- , 2018
WL 2975995, Nos. 17-5933 & 17-5997 (6th Cir. Jun. 14, 2018)
Filed 7 days after argument, which is interesting given that
the panel creates a bit of a mess—essentially disagreeing with circuit
precedent on use as a mark, but not going en banc on it. This is going to be a pain for district
courts; I take it that the best response for them will be to apply un-overruled
precedent and leave it to the court of appeals to go en banc if they’re so
unhappy with current precedent.
Colonel Edmund Haynes Taylor, Jr., “the most remarkable man
to enter the whiskey industry during the post-Civil War years,” built the Old
Taylor Distillery in 1887. Once the “most magnificent plant of its kind in
Kentucky,” the distillery fell into disrepair after the Colonel’s death, and
production ceased there in 1972. In 2014, Peristyle bought the property,
renovated it, and eventually resumed bourbon production there. Peristyle
regularly referred to its location at “the Former Old Taylor Distillery” or
“Old Taylor” during the renovation period, though the property has since been
renamed “Castle & Key.” Sazerac, however, acquired the trademark rights to
“Old Taylor” and “Colonel E.H. Taylor” for bourbon in 2009. The court of
appeals affirmed the finding of descriptive fair use.
Descriptive fair use “tolerate[s] some degree of confusion.”
Here, Peristyle used the Old Taylor name in a descriptive and geographic manner:
“to pinpoint the historic location where Peristyle planned to make a new
bourbon, not to brand that bourbon.” In four years, when that bourbon hits the
shelves, Peristyle didn’t plan to put “Old Taylor” on the bottle. Its uses included a flyer titled “The
Historic Site of The Old Taylor Distillery,” whicht notes that “We are busy
making history and restoring this bourbon ICON, the Historic Site of The Old
Taylor Distillery.” A social media post invited followers to the “VIP Mailing
List for the Former Old Taylor Distillery.” Another promotes barrel storage
services at “the distillery formerly known as: Old Taylor.” These were uses of
Old Taylor descriptively to identify a geographic location, the Old Taylor
Distillery. As the district court correctly ruled, “Peristyle is not attempting
to trade off the goodwill of Sazerac. Instead, Peristyle is enjoying the
goodwill already ingrained in the property it purchased and is advertising
itself for what it is: a distillery first built by Colonel Taylor, subsequently
abandoned, but once again purchased, renovated, and restored to life as Castle
& Key.”
Peristyle also acted in good faith: “One reason why
Peristyle referred to the distillery by name so often was that it had yet to
settle on a brand name for itself. That process was extensive, lasting over a
year, in part because ‘the reverence for [Old Taylor] is tremendous ... and to
find a name that would justify the spirit and architecture and history of this
place was a really tall order.’” Once it decided on a name, Peristyle’s fliers
featured that name. Even though it didn’t
always use “former” or “historic” to precede Old Taylor, but context still indicated
references to the physical distillery in a descriptive manner, e.g., “We’re
saving a seat for you at ... Old Taylor Distillery.”
Sazerac objected to a four-hundred foot “Old Taylor
Distillery” sign on the distillery’s barrel storage warehouse and a twenty-foot
“The Old Taylor Distillery Company” sign above the entrance to its main
building. “But both signs adorned the building before Peristyle purchased it
confirming that the company did not put them there or otherwise use them in bad
faith.” Peristyle used the signs only to identify the location of a site that’s
on the National Register of Historic Places as the “Old Taylor Distillery.”
Peristyle plans to put up a Castle & Key sign next to
the historic signs; “[t]rademark law demands no more.” Peristyle’s commercial
activities at the distillery, including hosting events and renting barrel-aging
warehouse space to third parties, didn’t constitute use of Old Taylor as a
trademark; they were use of Old Taylor as a place. “One way to make sure that
people get to an event is to describe the location accurately.”
Sazerac spent a lot of time challenging the Sixth Circuit’s threshold
“trademark use” test, requiring the plaintiff to show that the defendant is
using a mark “in a ‘[ ]trademark’ way” that “identifies the source of their
goods” before any confusion (or descriptive fair use) inquiry takes place. This
panel seemed to agree with the critics.
But those critics exaggerated the consequences of the test, since
trademark use “resembles in nearly every particular the fair use defense that
we just applied.” There might nonetheless
be fact patterns where it would make a difference because of burden-shifting or
because of an absence of inquiry into whether the non-trademark use was made “fairly
and in good faith.” However, the court
of appeals decided just to affirm the district court not on its trademark use
holding (which the panel specifically noted was faithful to circuit precedent)
but by finding that Peristyle made descriptive fair use, which was supported by
the record.
[Query whether this maneuvering is consistent with saying
that the trademark use test doesn’t consider good faith—of course, if you don’t
really have a distinct idea of what good faith is other than non-trademark,
descriptive use, then this result becomes a lot simpler. Also, to the extent that the Sixth Circuit requirement also deals with nominative fair use, this characterization doesn't work; part of the temptation to talk about "use as a mark for one's own goods/services" is that you don't have to spend time parsing that kind of distinction.]
No comments:
Post a Comment