Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA258280
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/31/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91150278
`Defendant
`Franklin Loufrani
`STEVEN L. BARON
`MANDELL MENKES LLC
`333 WEST WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 300
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`UNITED STATES
`sbaron@mandelllmenkes.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Natalie A. Harris
`nharris@mandellmenkes.com, sbaron@mandellmenkes.com,
`llavine@mandellmenkes.com
`/NAH/
`12/31/2008
`Notice of Related Subsequent Decision.pdf ( 3 pages )(45588 bytes )
`Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 537 F. Supp. 2d 1302.pdf ( 33 pages )(6025686
`bytes )
`Smith v. Walmart Counterclaim.pdf ( 45 pages )(325504 bytes )
`Wal-Mart Brief In Support Of Summary Judgment.pdf ( 44 pages )(366310 bytes
`)
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91/ 150,278
`OPPOSITION NO. 91/ 1 54,632
`
`Trademark:
`SMILEY & Design Serial No. 75/302,439
`SMILEY & Design Serial No. 75/977,376
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91/I52,-145
`
`Trademark:
`Smiley Design Serial No. 76/320,901
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`J )
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`WALMART STORES, INC.
`
`Opposer.
`
`V-
`
`FRANKLIN LOUFRANI
`
`Applicant.
`
`FRANKLIN LOUFRANI
`
`Opposer.
`
`V-
`
`M WAL-MART STORES, INC.
`
`)
`)
`)
`Applicant.
`,..w..mmj___._.___“)
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED SUIBSE UENT DECISION
`
`
`Franklin Loufrani, by and through his attorneys Steven L. Baron and Natalie A. Harris of
`
`Maridell Menkes LLC, hereby provide notice to the Trademark Triai and Appeal Board of the related
`
`subsequent decision captioned Smith v. Wal—Mart Stores, Inc, 537 F. Supp. 2d I302 (N.D. Georgia
`
`2008), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Related materials,
`
`including counter—
`
`claimant Wai-Mart Stores,
`
`Inc.’s Counterclaim and Brief In Support of Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectfully.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FRANKLIN LOUFRANI
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Natalie A. Harris
`
`Steven L. Baron
`
`Nataiie A. Harris
`
`MANDELL MENKES LLC
`
`155716
`
`

`
`333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 300
`Chicago, fliinois 60606
`(312) 251-1000 (phone)
`(312) 251-1010 (fax)
`Counsel for Franklin Loufrani
`
`156325
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that I caused this Notice ofRelated
`Subsequent Decision to be served on:
`
`Mr. Gary J. Rinkerman
`Drinker Biddle
`
`1500 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1209
`
`via First Class Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed and placed in the mail chute at 333
`West Wacker Drive, Chicago, lllinois 60606 before the hour of 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December
`31, 2008.
`
`/s/ Natalie A. Harris
`
`Natalie A. Harris
`
`l563?.5
`
`

`
`Page 1
`
`Motion granted.
`
`West Headnotes
`
`111 Trademarks 382T <3==>1136(2)
`
`382T Trademarks
`382TIV Creation and Priority of Rights
`382Tk1 132 Use of Mark
`
`382Tkl_l§§ Nature and Extent of Use
`382Tkll36(2) k. Particular Cases. ms;
`
`Cited Cases
`Internet website owner's use of smiley face to evoke re-
`tailer in minds of consumers through parody did not es-
`tablish by itself that smiley face was defensible trademark
`or that owner had trademark rights in it, although parody
`usually uses strong mark to evoke particular image in
`minds of viewers.
`
`Q1 Trademarks 382T ©7-31030
`
`382$ Trademarks
`3_8_2Ifl Marks Protected
` 2 Capacity to Distinguish or Signify;
`Distinctiveness
`382Tk1030 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
`Trademark protection is available under the Lanham Act
`only to distinctive marks, which are those that serve to
`identify the
`source of goods or
`services. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`L31 Trademarks 382T 6791032
`
`3_8_[l‘_ Trademarks
`382TII Marks Protected
`§_81l‘_l_g1_O;9_ Capacity to Distinguish or Signify;
`Distinctiveness
`§§_2Tkl032 k. Acquired Distinctiveness and
`Secondary Meaning in General. Most Cited Cases
`Under the Lanham Act, a mark that is not inherently dis-
`tinctive may acquire distinctiveness or secondary meaning
`by becoming associated in the minds of the public with the
`products or services offered by the proprietor of the mark.
`Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114g1).
`
`Welsitlavx/,1
`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`H U
`
`nited States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Divi-
`sion.
`.
`Charles SMITH, Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant.
`Civil Action No. 1:06—cv-526-TCB.
`
`March 20, 2008.
`
`Internet website owner brought action
`Background:
`against retailer seeking declaratory judgment that his do-
`main names and website merchandise, analogizing retailer
`to Nazis and al Qaeda, were lawful. Retailer counter-
`claimed asserting various federal trademark claims and
`related state law claims. Owner brought motion for sum-
`mary judgment.
`
`or
`
`Holdings: The District Court, Timothy C. Batten, Sr., 1,
`held that:
`(ll retailer did not establish that smiley face icon had ac-
`quired secondary meaning or that it otherwise was pro-
`tectible trademark;
`(__2_) retailer's trademarks “WALMART,” “WAL-MART,”
`and “WAL MART” and its word mark “ALWAYS LOW
`PRICES. ALWAYS” likely would not be confused with
`“WALOCAUST,” “
`WAL-QAEDA,” “FREEDOM
`HATER MART,”
`“BENTON VILLEBULLIES
`ALWAYS” concepts;
`Q) owner successfully parodied trademarks of retailer;
`(3) survey conducted for retailer that had overinclusive
`universe and did not approximate real-world marketplace
`conditions in its design was of dubious value as proof of
`consumer confusion;
`(_5_) extensive experience of owner's expert in studying
`Internet user behavior and designing social science surveys
`qualified him to provide reliable testimony regarding
`Internet-related deficiencies in survey methodology of
`retailer's expert;
`(Q) appropriate universe was consumers most likely to
`purchase owner's parodying merchandise;
`(J) survey universe was overbroad that included purchas-
`ers that did not have any potential to purchase owner's
`products; and
`and
`(81
`successful parodic work using Walocaust
`Wal-Qaeda concepts promoted through designs that were
`sold to public on t-shirts and other novelty merchandise
`was noncommercial speech.
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`EXHIBITA
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`141 Trademarks 382T 091032
`
`3_E_§_2_T_ Trademarks
`382TII Marks Protected
`
`_3§.’Zllc1_O_2_2 Capacity to Distinguish or Signify;
`Distinctiveness
`
`382Tkl032 k. Acquired Distinctiveness and
`Secondary Meaning in General. h_@gCited Cases
`Under the Lanham Act, a mark has acquired secondary
`meaning when the primary significance of the term in the
`minds of the consuming public is the producer. Lanham
`Trade—Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. 11 1114111.
`
`151 Trademarks 382T <€>==>162s(2)
`
`E Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX1 C1 Evidence
`382Tkl620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tk1 628 Secondary Meaning
`382Tkl628(21 k. Particular Cases. M_o_sj
`
`Cited Cases
`
`Retailer could not establish that smiley face icon had ac-~
`quired secondary meaning or that it otherwise was pro-
`tectible trademark under Lanham Act, without specific
`facts regarding length and nature of its use, nature and
`extent of advertising and promotion of smiley face, re-
`tailer's efforts to promote connection between smiley face
`and its business, and degree of actual recognition by public
`that smiley face designated retailer's products or services.
`Lanham Trade—Mark Act, § 32(1), 1;U.S.C.A. § 11141 1 1.
`
`161 Trademarks 382T @1098
`
`3321 Trademarks
`382TIlI Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`
`382Tk1093 Relationship Between Marks
`382TklO98 k. Appearance, Sound, and Meaning.
`Most Cited Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T €>=~'>1109
`
`3_82_T_ Trademarks
`382TIII Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`382Tk1lO7 Nature and Circumstances of Use of
`
`Marks
`
`Cases
`
`382Tkl102 k. Particular Uses. Most Cited
`
`Page 2
`
`Trademarks 382T <>=>1110
`
`3_8_2_I Trademarks
`382TIII Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`382Tk1l07 Nature and Circumstances of Use of
`
`Marks
`
`382Tk111O k. Trade Channels; Sales, Advertis-
`
`ing, and Marketing. Most Cited Cases
`Retailer's
`trademarks
`“WALMART,” “WAL-MART,”
`and “WAL MART” and its word mark “ALWAYS LOW
`
`PRICES. ALWAYS” likely would not be confused with
`“WALOCAUST,” “
`WAL~QAEDA,” “FREEDOM
`or
`HATER MAR ,”
`“BENTON VILLEBULLIES
`ALWAYS” concepts, as required for Lanham Act trade-
`mark infringement claim, since appearance and usage of
`marks were different and advertising methods were vastly
`different. Lanham Trade~Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. §
`1114111.
`
`111 Trademarks 382T €%~>10s1
`
`3 82T Trademarks
`
`382TIIl Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`382Tkl08l k. Factors Considered in General. Most
`Cited Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T <’>=>1500
`
`3_§_2_I Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIII1C1 Misuse of Internet Domain Names;
`Cyberpiracy and Cybersquatting
`382Tkl500 k. Nature of Offending Domain
`Name; Similarity and Confusion. Most Cited Cases
`In order to show that a competitor's use of an owner's
`trademarks is likely to cause an appreciable number of
`potential buyers to be confused about the source, affiliation,
`or sponsorship of the competitor's products, on Lanham
`Act claims of trademark infringement, cybersquatting,
`unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, a court
`balances a variety of factors, including the strength of the
`allegedly infringed mark, whether the designs that incor-
`porate the registered mark are similar, whether the prod-
`ucts sold by the parties are similar, whether the retail out-
`lets and purchasers are similar, whether the parties use the
`same advertising media, whether the defendant intended to
`usurp the registered trademark, and whether any consumw
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`Page 3
`
`ers were actually confused. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, §§
`32(1),
`43(d)(1)(A),
`15
`U.S.C.A.
`1114 1
`,
`11251d)g1)(A).
`
`]§_1 Trademarks 382T 8791116
`
`382T Trademarks
`382TIII Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`382Tkl116 k. Internet Cases. Most Cited Cases
`
`382TVIII§D1 Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tkl52l Justified or Permissible Uses
`382Tkl524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tkl524(2) k. Parody or Satire. M_Qs_t
`
`Cited Cases
`To successfully avoid infringement under the Lanham Act,
`an alleged parody must both call to mind and differentiate
`itself from the original, and it must communicate some
`articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking, or amuse~
`ment. Lanham Trade~Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. §
`1114(1).
`
`Trademarks 382T '€>W1524(2)
`
`1_1_11 Trademarks 382T 03915249)
`
`_3_8_Z_1‘_ Trademarks
`382TVIIl Violations of Rights
`382TVIII§D[ Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tk152l Justified or Permissible Uses
`3 82Tkl 524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tk152412) k. Parody or Satire. Mgst
`
`Cited Cases
`Internet website owner successfully parodied trademarks
`of retailer through concepts that conveyed owner's satirical
`commentary and adequately evoked retailer by using either
`“WAL” or “MART” as part of concept while maintaining
`differentiation through concepts that were not “idealized
`image” ofregistered marks, and thus diminished likelihood
`of confusion, on retailer's claim of trademark infringement
`under Lanham Act. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 1_5_
`U.S.C.A.§_11_1_4(_u.
`
`I21 Trademarks 382T €:°1524(2)
`
`3_8_2l Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIIIgD) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tk1521 Justified or Permissible Uses
`382Tk1524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tk1524g2g k. Parody or Satire. Mgsjg
`
`Cited Cases
`For the purposes of Lanham Act trademark analysis, a
`“parody” is defined as a simple form of entertainment
`conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of
`the trademark with the idealized image created by the
`mark's owner. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15
`p_._s,g:._A_.§_1114(1).
`
`11111 Trademarks 382T <*3~‘~=°1s24(2)
`
`382T Trademarks
`382TVlII Violations of Rights
`
`3_8_2_I_ Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIIIg D) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tkl 521 Justified or Permissible Uses
`382Tk1524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tk1524§2) k. Parody or Satire. Mgst
`
`Cited Cases
`A parody may constitute trademark infringement under the
`Lanham Act
`if that parody is
`confusing. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A.
`1114 1 .
`
`1_i_;1 Trademarks 382T <’>D1524(2)
`
`3_8_2_'_l"_ Trademarks
`382TVlII Violations of Rights
`3__8;'_I‘_VIIl§D) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tkl52l Justified or Permissible Uses
`382Tkl524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tkl524§2) k. Parody or Satire. M_c;st
`
`Cited Cases
`For the purposes of Lanham Act trademark analysis, an
`effective parody will actually diminish the likelihood of
`confusion, while an ineffective parody does not. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114111.
`
`113 Trademarks 382T @~'5°1629(2)
`
`;§_2__T_ Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX§ Cl Evidence
`382Tkl620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tk1629 Similarity; Likelihood of Com
`
`fusion
`
`382Tk1629g2) k. Actual Confusion. Most
`
`Cited Cases
`Proof of actual confusion is considered the best evidence
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`of likelihood of confusion on a claim of trademark in-
`fringement under the Lanham Act. Lanham Trade-Mark
`Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`1131 Trademarks 382T é>x>1629(2)
`
`38_2_I Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C ) Evidence
`382Tk1620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tk1 629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`Page 4
`
`§_8_2I Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C) Evidence
`382Tk16l3 Admissibility
`382Tkl6l9 k. Surveys. Most Cited Cases
`When undertaking to demonstrate likelihood of confusion
`in a Lanham Act trademark infringement case by use of
`survey evidence, the appropriate universe should include a
`fair sampling of those purchasers most likely to partake of
`the
`alleged infringer's goods or
`services. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`fusion
`
`Cited Cases
`
`382Tk1629(2) k. Actual Confusion. Most
`
`ml Trademarks 382T 9?-‘°1629(4)
`
`Trademarks 382T <=>='-=>1629(4)
`
`3§_I Trademarks
`382T12$ Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX; C 1 Evidence
`382Tk1620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tkl629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`fusion
`
`38_2_Tkl629(4) k. Surveys. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`trademark infringement claimant may
`A Lanham Act
`present anecdotal evidence of marketplace confusion, and
`surveys, when appropriately and accurately conducted and
`reported,
`as evidence of actual confusion. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`1i_5_1 Trademarks 382T é>==>1629(4)
`
`3§._2_"_l‘_ Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX; C 1 Evidence
`382Tk1620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tkl629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`fusion
`
`382Tk1629(4) k. Surveys. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`Consumer “likelihood of contusion” apparel survey con-
`ducted for retailer that had overinclusive universe and did
`not approximate real-world marketplace conditions in its
`design was of dubious value as proof of consumer confu-
`sion on claim of trademark infringement under Lanham
`Act. Lanham Trade—Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. §
`_l_1 14(1); Fed.Rules Evid.Ru1e 703, 28 U.S.C.A.
`
`[l_6_1 Trademarks 382T 631619
`
`3§;'_l‘_ Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`3 82TIX( C ) Evidence
`382Tkl620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tkl629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`fusion
`
`382Tk1629(4) k. Surveys. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`A survey that fails to adequately replicate market condi-
`tions is entitled to little weight, if any,
`in determining
`likelihood of confusion in a Lanham Act trademark in-
`fringement case. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1),
`_1_5_
`U.S.C.A. § ll14( l l.
`
`j_1§1 Evidence 157 639536
`
`_l_§_Z Evidence
`l57XII Opinion Evidence
`157XII( C) Competency of Experts
`l57k536 k. Knowledge, Experience, and Skill in
`General. Most Cited Cases
`Extensive experience of Internet website owner's expert in
`studying Internet user behavior and designing social sci-
`ence surveys qualified him to provide reliable testimony
`about how Internet users interacted with websites and how
`they searched for content online, whether survey method-
`ology of expert for retailer comported with those tenden-
`cies, and how assumptions of retailer's expert about
`Internet user behavior impacted accuracy of surveyed
`universe and survey's replication of online shopping ex-
`perience, which were relevant to traderriark infringement
`claims of retailer, although owner's expert lacked experi-
`ence evaluating merits of trademark infringement or dilu-
`tion claims and only one survey that he had designed iii-
`volved consumer product. Lanham Trade—Mark Act, §
`32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1); Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 702,
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`28 U.S.C.A.
`
`1121 Trademarks 382T ‘$591619
`
`§_2_I Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX§ C 1 Evidence
`382Tk1613 Admissibility
`382Tkl6l9 k. Surveys. Most Cited Cases
`Appropriate universe for survey in retailer's trademark
`infringement case against seller of material parodying
`retailer was consumers most likely to purchase defendant
`seller's parodying merchandise. Lanham Trade-Mark Act,
`§ 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`]2_0_1 Trademarks 382T €7~‘~’1629(4)
`
`3&2: Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C) Evidence
`382Tk1620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tkl629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`fusion
`
`Cases
`
`382Tk1629(4) k. Surveys. Most Cited
`
`Consumer “likelihood of confusion” apparel survey uni-
`verse was overbroad that included purchasers that did not
`have any potential to purchase products of Internet website
`owner, and thus survey had diminished value for evalua-
`tion of merits of retailer's Lanham Act trademark in-
`fringement claims. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 1§
`U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`j_2_;1 Trademarks 382T <=>=°1619
`
`§§2_T_ Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`3_82TIX§ C) Evidence
`382Tk1613 Admissibility
`;§2Tk1619 k. Surveys. Most Cited Cases
`To be valid for the purposes of demonstrating actual con-
`fusion in a Lanham Act trademark infringement suit, it is
`necessary for a survey‘s protocol to take into account
`marketplace conditions and typical consumer behavior so
`that the survey may as accurately as possible measure the
`relevant thought processes of consumers encountering the
`disputed mark as they would in the marketplace. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 111411).
`
`12_2_1 Evidence 157 973536
`
`Page 5
`
`15] Evidence
`157XlI Opinion Evidence
`l57XII( C) Competency of Experts
`l57k536 k. Knowledge, Experience, and Skill in
`General. Most Cited Cases
`
`Extensive experience of Internet website owner's expert in
`designing and evaluating surveys qualified him to provide
`reliable testimony about technical flaws in design of cone
`sumer “likelihood of confusion” apparel study and impact
`of those flaws on trustworthiness of reported results, and
`their impact on trademark infringement claims of retailer,
`although expert did not have experience evaluating merits
`of trademark infringement claims. Lanham Trade-Mark
`Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. §_j 1 14(1); Fed.Rules Evid.Rule
`702 28 U.S.C.A.
`
`[231 Federal Civil Procedure 170A 932545
`
`170A Federal Civil Procedure
`
`1”/OAXVII Judgment
`170AXVII( C) Summary Judgment
`17OAXVI1(C)3 Proceedings
`170Ak2542 Evidence
`
`Cases
`
`l70Ak2545 k. Admissibility. Most Cited
`
`Numerous typographical errors in expert report did not
`necessarily reduce evidentiary value of general testimony
`in report and therefore did not require its exclusion on
`motion for summary judgment. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 702,
`2§U.S.C.A.
`
`L231 Trademarks 382T 97591619
`
`£21 Trademarks
`382TIX_ Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C) Evidence
`382Tk1613 Admissibility
`382Tk1619 k. Surveys. Most Cited Cases
`Consumer “likelihood of confusion” apparel survey design
`that may have breached generally accepted double-blind
`protocol to some degree had little import in determination
`of trustworthiness of survey,
`in trademark infringement
`action, since breach offered little risk of bias toward one
`party or other. Lanham Trade-Mark Act,
`§ 32(1),
`l_§
`U.S.C.A. § 11141 1).
`
`1251 Trademarks 382T <>=>1629(4)
`
`3 82T Trademarks
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C) Evidence
`382Tk1620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tkl629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`fusion
`
`382Tk1629(4) k. Surveys. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`Use of “company or store” language in consumer “likeli-
`hood of confusion” apparel survey diminished evidentiary
`value that could be accorded survey in infringement action
`brought by retailer against individual who was criticizing
`retailer. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32( 1), 15 U.S§._A_,_§_
`111451).
`
`[gfl Trademarks 382T 6391619
`
`3&1 Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIXt C) Evidence
`382Tk1613 Admissibility
`382Tk1619 k. Surveys. Most Cited Cases
`Consumer “likelihood of confusion” apparel survey that
`tested only “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS[.] BOYCOTT
`WAL—QAEDA” t-shirt and Walocaust eagle t—shirt did not
`have any relevance on likelihood of confusion with regard
`to use of words “Walocaust” and “ Wal~Qaeda” in gen-
`eral, on Lanham Act trademark infringement claim, since
`context mattered. Lanham Trade—Mark Act, § 32(1), 1_5_
`U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`L211 Constitutional Law 92 091604
`
`32 Constitutional Law
`92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
`92XV1l1( C) Trade or Business
`92k1604 k. Trademarks and Trade Names. M_o_s_t
`Cited Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T €=-'>1632
`
`3_8_2_T Trademarks
`_3_§2_T_D_( Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C) Evidence
`382Tkl 62_Q Weight and Sufficiency
`3821”kl632 k. Defenses, Excuses, and Justi-
`fications. Most Cited Cases
`Consumer “likelihood of confusion” apparel study proto-
`col that was insufficient for many marketing purposes and
`heavily criticized for behavioral science purposes had
`diminished value to aid trademark infringement claims of
`
`Page 6
`
`retailer that challenged First Amendment free speech of
`Internet website owner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
`1;
`Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`1_2_§1 Trademarks 382T 031086
`
`3821 Trademarks
`382TIlI Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`
`3_8_2_Tk1083 Nature of Confiision
`382Tk1086 k. Actual Confusion. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T ©3~7’1629(2)
`
`§:__8_2_I Trademarks
`382TIX Actions and Proceedings
`382TIX( C) Evidence
`382Tk1620 Weight and Sufficiency
`382Tkl 629 Similarity; Likelihood of Con-
`
`fusion
`
`382Tkl629(2) k. Actual Confusion. _Mo_s_t
`
`Cited Cases
`In a Lanham Act trademark infringement case, a court may
`find a likelihood of confusion in the absence of any evi-
`dence of actual confusion, even though actual confusion is
`the best evidence of likelihood of confusion. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. §_1_1_1_z_l(_l_).
`
`[2_9_) Trademarks 382T ©«=>1033
`
`_3§;I Trademarks
`382TII Marks Protected
`382Tk1033 k. Levels or Categories of Distinct-
`iveness in General; Strength of Marks in General. Mpg
`Cited Cases
`In general, the more the public recognizes a trademark as
`an indication of the origin of certain products or services,
`the greater the protection that it is afforded under the
`Lanham Act. Lanham Trade-Mark Act,
`§ 32(1), 15
`U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`13_01 Trademarks 382T 6-=91524(2)
`
`382: Trademarks
`_3_8_2_'_I‘_\L1I_l Violations of Rights
`382TVII1(D) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tkl 521 Justified or Permissible Uses
`
`3 82Tk1524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tk1524§ 2) k. Parody or Satire. M_Q§’_t
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`Page 7
`
`Cited Cases
`
`Parodying concepts that were not merely unflattering, but
`veered toward outrageous and offensive, diminished like-
`lihood of Lanham Act trademark confusion, particularly
`where there was disclaimer of affiliation with trademark
`owner. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. §
`111411).
`
`L311 Trademarks 382T 07791095
`
`33321 Trademarks
`382TIII Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`
`382Tk1093 Relationship Between Marks
`382Tk1095 k. Similarity or Dissimilarity in
`General. Most Cited Cases
`
`382Tkl465 Creation of Unfavorable Associa-
`
`tions; Tarnishment
`382Tkl466 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
`
`Under the Lanham Act, dilution by tarnishment recognizes
`an injury when a trademark is portrayed in an unwhole—
`some or unsavory context
`likely to evoke unflattering
`thoughts about the owner's product. Lanham Trade-Mark
`Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114111.
`
`]§_§]_ Constitutional Law 92 091604
`
`2; Constitutional Law
`2_2_XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
`92XVIII( C) Trade or Business
`92k1604 k. Trademarks and Trade Names. M_o_s1
`Cited Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T €>==>142s(1)
`
`Constitutional Law 92 9792151
`
`382T Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIII( A} In General
`382Tkl423 Particular Cases, Practices, or
`
`9_2 Constitutional Law
`92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
`92XVlII§ W) Telecommunications and Computers
`92k2l48 Internet
`
`Conduct
`
`Cases
`
`382Tk1428 Passing Off or Palming Off
`382Tk1428(11 k. In General. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`
`22_k2__lil k. Website Content. Most Cited
`
`In order that there be infringement of a trademark under the
`Lanham Act,
`the offending mark must so closely ap-
`proximate the original rnark that
`there is likely to be
`palming off of one product as
`the other. Lanham
`Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`[3_2_1 Trademarks 382T 6701111
`
`_3_2T Trademarks
`382TIII Similarity Between Marks; Likelihood of
`Confusion
`382Tk1ll1 k. Intent; Knowledge of Confusion or
`Similarity. Most Cited Cases
`Proof that the secondary user intended to confuse the pub-
`he is unnecessary to a finding of likelihood of confusion on
`a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act.
`Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. ,§ 11141 1_).
`
`gal Trademarks 3321* <€'~=°1466
`
`382T Trademarks
`
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIII§ B 1 Dilution
`
`Trademarks 382T ©»1524(2)
`
`3§_[l‘_ Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIII(D) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tkl 521 Justified or Permissible Uses
`
`382Tkl524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tk1524(2) k. Parody or Satire. _Mo_s_t
`
`Cited Cases
`
`Internet website owner's successful parodic work using
`Walocaust and Wal—Qaeda concepts promoted through
`designs that were sold to public on t-shirts and other nov-
`elty merchandise was noncommercial First Amendment
`speech, and therefore not subject to retailer's trademark
`dilution claims, since owner primarily intended to express
`his strong adverse opinion about retailer with those con-
`cepts and commercial success was secondary motive at
`most. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; Lanham Trade-Mark Act,
`§32(1), _1_§U.S.C.A. § 1114(1).
`
`]_3_5_1 Constitutional Law 92 ©‘«=>1604
`
`22 Constitutional Law
`92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`92XVlII( C) Trade or Business
`92kl604 k. Trademarks and Trade Names. Most
`Cited Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T %>1s24(2)
`
`§82i Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIII( D) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tk152l Justified or Permissible Uses
`
`382Tk1524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tk1524g2[ k. Parody or Satire. M_gs_t
`
`Cited Cases
`
`Tarnishment caused merely by an editorial or artistic
`parody which satirizes the complainant's product or its
`image is not actionable under the Lanham Act anti-dilution
`statute because of the free speech protections of the First
`Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
`1;
`Lanham
`Trade—Mark Act, § 32(1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 11141 1).
`
`]§_§] Constitutional Law 92 691604
`
`_9_2 Constitutional Law
`92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
`92XVIII1C1 Trade or Business
`92k1604 k. Trademarks and Trade Names. Mo_st
`Cited Cases
`
`Trademarks 382T é>=°1524(1)
`
`312:1,‘ Trademarks
`382TVIII Violations of Rights
`382TVIII(D) Defenses, Excuses, and Justifications
`382Tk152l Justified or Permissible Uses
`
`382Tkl524 Expressive Use; Commentary
`382Tkl524111 k. In General. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`
`A Lanham Act claim of dilution applies only to purely
`commercial
`First Amendment
`speech. U.S.C.A.
`Const.Amend. 1; Lanham Trade—Mark Act, § 32(1), Q
`U.S.C.A. § lll4§1).
`
`Trademarks 382T <€>=?1800
`
`382T Trademarks
`
`382TXI Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tkl80O k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`ALWAYS LOW PRICES. ALWAYS.
`
`Page 8
`
`Trademarks 382T 991800
`
`QQI Trademarks
`382TXI Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tkl800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`BENTON VILLEBULLIES ALWAYS.
`
`Trademarks 382T €7~°1800
`
`382T Trademarks
`
`382TXI Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tk1800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`FREEDOM HATER MART.
`
`Trademarks 382T <°f~?1800
`
`1821 Trademarks
`§_8__2_T_)_(_[ Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tk1800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`WAL MART.
`
`Trademarks 382T 6391800
`
`382T Trademarks
`
`382TXI Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tkl 800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`WALMART.
`
`Trademarks 382T <*3==>1800
`
`3__8_2_T_ Trademarks
`382TXI Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tkl800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`WALOCAUST.
`
`Trademarks 382T é>=°1800
`
`;§2_I Trademarks
`_3_§2j11(I_ Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tkl800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Eases
`WAL-MART.
`
`Trademarks 382T ®=°1800
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`537 F.Supp.2d l302
`537 F.Supp.2d 1302, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835
`(Cite as: 537 F.Supp.2d 1302)
`
`Page 9
`
`382T Trademarks
`382TXI Trademarks and Trade Names Adjudicated
`382Tk1800 k. Alphabetical Listing. Most Cited
`
`Cases
`
`WAL-QAEDA.
`
`*1308 Gerald R. Weber, Atlanta, GA, Paul Alan Levy,
`Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC,
`for
`Plaintiff.
`Claudia T. Bogdanos, Partha P. Chattoraj, Robert L. Ras-
`_lggp_f, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP,
`New York, NY, Kenneth R. Ozment, John M. Bowler,
`Troutrnan Sanders, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.
`This action arises from the contention of Defendant
`Wal—Mart Stores,
`Inc.
`that
`its
`registered trademarks
`“WALMART”; “WAL-MART”; and “WAL MART”; its
`registered word mark “ALWAYS LOW PRICES.
`ALWAYS”; and its “well-known smiley face mark” were
`infringed by Plaintiff Charles Smith's anti-Wal-Mart
`merchandise. Smith petitions the Court to declare his ac-
`tivities legal so that he may resume them without fear of
`incurring liability for damages; Wal—Mart counterclaims
`for an award of ownership of Smith's Wal—Mart-related
`domain names, an injunction precluding Smith from
`making commercial use of any designation beginning with
`the prefix “WAL,” and an award of nominal damages.
`Both parties pray for costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`Pending before the Court are Smith's motion for summary
`judgment [76], Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment
`[77], Smith's motion in limine to exclude Wal-Mart's ex-
`pert witness evidence [78], and Wal-Mart's motions in
`limine to exclude evidence from Smith's two rebuttal ex-
`pert witnesses [81, 82].
`
`I. Background
`
`Wal—Mart Stores, Inc., which had approximately $283
`billion in gross domestic revenue in fiscal year 2008,m'—
`sells retail goods and services through a large chain of
`nearly 6500 physical stores and its Internet site, www. wal-
`mart. corn. The company also owns and operates additional
`domain names, including www. walmartstores. com and
`www. walmartfacts. com, that link to the www. wal- mart.
`com website.
`
`FNI. Wal-Mart's fiscal year 2008 ended on
`January 31, 2008; domestic sales figures include
`approximately
`$239
`billion
`attributable
`to
`Wal—Mart Stores and approximately $44 billion
`attributable to Sam's Club. Wal—Mart Investor
`Relations, Wal—Mart Reports Record Fourth
`Quarter Sales and Earnings 2 (Feb. 19, 2008),
`available at http:// www. walmartfacts. corn/ ar-
`tic1es/ 5675. aspx.
`
`The company owns and has continuously used the
`well-known WAL-MART trademark*1309 and service
`mark in the United States for retail department store ser-
`vices since 1962 and has longstanding registered trade-
`mark rights in the marks. WAL-MART and WALMART
`are used alone or in conjunction with Wal-Mart's blue
`five-pointed star. Wal—Mart also owns a trademar