Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA366190
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/01/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92045947
`Defendant
`Great Concepts, LLC
`R. Milton Crouch
`Shapiro Fussell, LLP
`1360 Peachtree St., Suite 1200
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`UNITED STATES
`mcrouch@shapirofussell.com, docketing@procopio.com, lmf@procopio.com,
`mlf@procopio.com, fkt@procopio.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Frederick K. Taylor
`docketing@procopio.com, fkt@procopio.com, tma@procopio.com,
`/Frederick K. Taylor/
`09/01/2010
`Request_to_Remove_Stay_of_Proceedings.pdf ( 5 pages )(20406 bytes )
`Exhibit 1.pdf ( 34 pages )(1456182 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92045947
`
`Registration No. 2929764
`
`Mark: Dantannas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAN TANA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GREAT CONCEPTS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GREAT CONCEPTS’ REQUEST TO REMOVE SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`Dear Sir/Madam:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Registrant Great Concepts, LLC (“Registrant”), hereby
`
`requests that the Suspension on the Cancellation Proceeding issued by this Board on February 4,
`
`2010, be removed, and that new dates be set for Registrant’s Motion for Summary of Judgment
`
`as outlined below.
`
`I. Introduction
`
`Petitioner Dan Tana (“Petitioner”) initially filed this cancellation proceeding on June 6,
`
`2006. Once Petitioner was faced with a motion for summary judgment from Registrant, in what
`
`this Board called an “apparent response to the motion for summary judgment,” Petitioner filed a
`
`copy of the complaint in the civil action, styled Dan Tana v. Dantanna’s, Great Concepts, LLC,
`
`et al., Case No. CV 07-05532-ABC (JwJx), in the United States District Court for the Central
`
`District of California on August 23, 2007.
`
` 114623/000001/1248022.01
`
`

`
`On September 12, 2007, a mere two weeks after Registrant filed its Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment in this proceeding, Petitioner filed his Motion to Stay the Cancellation Proceeding,
`
`pending the U.S. District Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s federal suit. Petitioner had filed its
`
`Motion to Stay without seeking the consent of Registrant. Petitioner even neglected to serve
`
`Registrant with a copy of his Motion to Stay. Registrant only had knowledge of the motion
`
`when the Board sent a notice of non-compliance to Petitioner a few days after the motion was
`
`filed. This Board eventually granted Petitioner’s Motion to Stay on September 20, 2007.
`
`Registrant then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in the U.S.
`
`District Court action on November 19, 2007. Petitioner opposed on December 3, 2007, and
`
`Registrant replied on December 10, 2007. On February 12, 2008, the U.S. District Court issued
`
`an order granting Registrant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction with
`
`prejudice to refilling this action in California.
`
`Petitioner then filed another lawsuit in federal district court. Petitioner filed an action
`
`styled Dan Tana v. Dantanna’s, Great Concepts, LLC, et al., Case No. CV 08-CV- 0975 TWT in
`
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint in that
`
`action alleged claims of False Designation of Origin Under the Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S .C .
`
`§ 1125(a)), and related claims under Georgia statutes.
`
`On February 26, 2009, after a full period of discovery, the same party which is the
`
`Registrant to this proceeding, Great Concepts, LLC, filed a motion for summary judgment. On
`
`September 15, 2009, the court granted Great Concepts’ motion dismissing the action. On
`
`October 7, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 09-15123.
`
`
` 114623/000001/1248022.01
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Both the Petitioner and Great Concepts fully briefed the issues raised on appeal. On July
`
`15, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued an order, published opinion and judgment affirming the
`
`trial court’s grant of the motion for summary judgment. A true and correct copy of that Court’s
`
`Order, published opinion and Judgment are attached herein as Exhibit “1.”
`
`In granting affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment, the court stated,
`
`with regard to the likelihood of confusion:
`
`Viewing the likelihood-of-confusion factors as a whole, there is
`minimal evidence of a likelihood of confusion between Plaintiff's
`and Defendants’ restaurants aside from the initial similarity of their
`names and the fact that they both provide restaurant services. The
`remaining factors all weigh against a likelihood of confusion, some
`overwhelmingly so. There are stark differences between the two
`restaurants’ cuisine and ambiance. There is virtually no evidence
`of confusion in advertising channels. No reasonable jury could
`find that Defendants intended to trade on Plaintiffs mark, and there
`is negligible evidence of any actual confusion between the two
`restaurants.
`
`
`
`See, Exhibit 1, Order and Opinion, p. 29. Accordingly, despite the similarity in names, the
`
`Court ultimately upheld the dismissal of Petitioner’s action.
`
`II. Discussion
`
`The Code of Federal Regulations which governs Motions to Suspend in TTAB actions
`
`
`
`
`
`states the following in pertinent part:
`
`Whenever it shall come to the attention of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that a
`party or parties to a pending case are engaged in a civil action or another Board
`proceeding which may have a bearing on the case, proceedings before the Board may be
`suspended until termination of the civil action or the other Board proceeding.
`
`37 CFR § 2.117(a) (emphasis added).
`
`Given that the civil action before the U.S. District Court has now been terminated, and all
`
`matters before that Court are now disposed, Registrant hereby requests that this Board remove
`
`the suspension on proceedings. Registrant further requests that; new dates be set for Registrant’s
`
`
` 114623/000001/1248022.01
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Motion for Summary Judgment; that Petitioner’s opposition to the same be due thirty days after
`
`the Order removing the Suspension of Cancellation Proceedings; and for Registrant’s reply to
`
`said opposition be set seven days before the hearing on the summary judgment motion.
`
`Moreover, pursuant to this Board’s suspension order of February 4, 2010, Registrant hereby
`
`notifies the Board of the disposition of District Court Case No. CV 07-05532-ABC (JwJx) and
`
`United States Court of Appeals Case No. 09-15123, and requests that this case may be called up
`
`for appropriate action.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`Registrant respectfully requests that this Board remove the Suspension on the
`
`Cancellation Proceeding, and further, that this Board reset dates for the decision on Registrant’s
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment, Petitioner’s opposition, and Registrant’s reply to the same.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Frederick K. Taylor/
`By:
`Fredrick K. Taylor
`Lisel M. Ferguson
`530 B Street, Suite 2100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: (619) 515-3279
`Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
`Email: fkt@procopio.com
`
`Milton Crouch
`Shapiro Fussell, LLP
`1360 Peachtree St., Suite 1200, Midtown Plaza
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`
` 114623/000001/1248022.01
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing REQUEST TO
`
`
`
`REMOVE SUSPENSION of PROCEEDINGS is being emailed on September 1, 2010 to the
`
`attorney for Petitioner as follows:
`
`Afschineh Latifi
`Tucker & Latifi, LLP
`160 East 84th Street
`New York, New York 10028
`Email: alatifi@tuckerlatifi.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Frederick K. Taylor/
`By:
` Frederick K. Taylor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 114623/000001/1248022.01
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`HLEDulP:g|éER‘£S (t)aFFICE
`~~~~~~~~~~~~
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`United States Court of Appeals
`~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
`For the Eleventh Circuit
`AUG 1 6 2010
`,
`-.e-.,4-
`V -.—,
`..r-4---..~«—.,,......._.—.g.....,,...__.=..,,._,,,,,:,,,_,_w_
`
`~~~ ~~~~~~~~
`
`~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`JAMES N. HATTEN.
`~ ~~~
`"
`'
`.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`~~~~~~~~~~
`
`p.
`
`
`District Court Docket No.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`08-00975-CV-TWT-1
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Jul 15,2010
`
`JOHN LEY
`~~~~~~~~
`CLERK
`~~~~~
`
`
`~~~~~~~~ ~
`DAN TANA,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`- VCISUS
`~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~
`DANTANNA'S,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`an unknown business entity,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`GREAT CONCEPTS, L.L.C.,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`a Georgia Limited Liability Company,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`DANTANNA'S CNN CENTER, LLC,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`a Georgia limited liability company, Defendants-Appeliees.
`
`~~~~~~~
`~~
`~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`~~~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`for the Northern District of Georgia
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~
`JUDGMENT
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the attached opinion included herein by
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`reference, is entered as the judgment of this Court.
`
`~~
`D A3 M
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Entered:
`July 15, 2010
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`For the Court:
`John Ley, Clerk
`By:
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`Patch, iefire)’
`
`\?’$UE
`ANDA73‘
`~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
`
`
`AUG 1 3 2019
`
`.S. COURT OF APPBKLS
`~ ~~~~~~~ ~~
`' TLANTA GP‘
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`~~~~~~~~~
`[PUBLISH]
`
`~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
`No. 09-15123
`
`FILED
`~~~~~
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
`~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~
`JULY 15, 2010
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`JOHN LEY
`D. C. Docket No. 08-00975-CV- WT-1
`~~~~~~~~~~~~
`CLERK
`~~~~~
`
`
`
`~~~~~~~~~
`DAN TANA,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`~~~~~~
`versus
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~
`DANTANNA’S,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`an unknown business entity,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
`GREAT CONCEPTS, L.L.C.,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`a Georgia Limited Liability Company,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`DANTANNA’S CNN CENTER, LLC,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`a Georgia limited liability company,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`for the Northern District of Georgia
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`(July 15, 2010)
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`This trademark infringement action concerns two restaurants, situated on
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`opposite sides of the country, that share very similar names. Dan Tana, owner of
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Dan Tana’s restaurant in Hollywood, California (“Plaintiff”), brought this action
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`against the two limited liability companies that own and operate the Dantanna’s
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`restaurants in Atlanta, Georgia—Grcat Concepts, L.L.C., and Dantanna’s CNN
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Center, LLC (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs complaint alleges that David Clapp,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`founder of the Dantanna’s restaurants and managing member of the Defendants,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`intentionally selected and registered as a federal trademark a name for his
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`restaurants that is confusingly similar to the name of Plaintiffs restaurant in
`
`~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Hollywood. The claims forming the basis of Plaintiffs complaint are false
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`designation of origin, a theory of federal trademark infringement arising under §
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1l25(a) (Count I); deceptive trade practices
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`under Gcorgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-3 70 et
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
`seq. (Count II); fraud pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55 (Count III); and the
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`unauthorized appropriation of likeness, an invasion-of-privacy tort recognized
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`under Georgia law (Count IV).1
`
`The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`~
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiffs complaint also included, and the district court also rejected, a state-law
`1
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`claim for unjust enrichment (Count V), which Plaintiff chose not to appeal in this action.
`
`2
`~
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`counts. Plaintiff now appeals, arguing that triable issues of fact remain as to
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two restaurants and whether
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Defendants intentionally appropriated the name of his restaurant. Because we
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`conclude that Plaintiff has not adduced sufficient evidence giving rise to a genuine
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`issue of material fact on the issue of likelihood of confusion or Defendants’
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`knowing appropriation of his likeness, we affirm the district court’s grant of
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiff Dan Tana is a self-described former Yugoslav soccer star,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`prominent restaurateur, film producer, and actor. He opened his Italian-themed
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`restaurant, Dan Tana’s, in West Hollywood, California, in 1964. Since that time,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`the restaurant has enjoyed a storied history, attracting Hollywood celebrities and
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`insiders to the restaurant’s intimate and romantic setting. Dan Tana’s serves
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`traditional Italian fare, and it resembles an old-world Italian trattoria with red-and-
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`white checkered table cloths and straw-colored wine flasks hanging from the
`
`~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`ceiling. Plaintiff, who has been the sole owner of the restaurant since its inception,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`figures prominently into its ambiance, personally greeting and welcoming his
`
`~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`patrons. The Press has referred to Dan Tana’s as a “legendary Hollywood hotspot”
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`and the ultimate “LA hangout,” and the restaurant has been featured in numerous
`
`~
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`newspapers, magazines, and books. The name “Dan Tanna” received significant
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`publicity in the 1970s when producer Aaron Spelling asked Plaintiff for the use of
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`his name for the lead character in his television series “Vega$.”
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Despite the notoriety of Plaintiff’ s restaurant, Plaintiff did not attempt to
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`register the name “Dan Tana’s_” with the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`until June 2005, forty-one years after his restaurant’s opening. The PTO denied his
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`application in December 2005 on the basis of the existing registration of the
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`trademark “Dantanna’s” in the same category of restaurant services sought by
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiff. Defendants had opened the first of two Dantanna’s locations in Atlanta in
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`2003, applied for a federal registration in June 2003, and obtained federal
`9}!’
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`registration of the name “Dantanna s
`In March 2005, claiming a date of first use of
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`September 30, 2003.2
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`The Dantanna’s restaurants are upscale sports restaurants serving
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`contemporary American cuisine with a “surf and turf’ theme. The restaurants’
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`large open floor plans boast big screen televisions tuned to sports channels on
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`surrounding walls. According to its website, Dantanna’s specializes in providing a
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`sophisticated and elegant venue for the viewing of sporting events and strives to
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`2
`At the time Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, Defendants operated only one location of
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Dantanna’s in Atlanta’s Buckhead neighborhood. They have since expanded to a second location
`in downtown Atlanta.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`
`~
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 6 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 6 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`emulate the feeling of sitting in a “private box at your favorite game.”
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`In June 2006, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Cancellation of Defendants’ mark
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`with the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, alleging that Defendants
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`sought to mislead the public into believing their restaurant was associated with Dan
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Tana’s Hollywood. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a federal trademark infringement
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`suit in United States District Court for the Central District of California, which was
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`ultimately dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over one of the Defendants.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`After Plaintiff filed his federal lawsuit, he moved to suspend the trademark
`
`cancellation proceeding pending before the PTO‘. The PTO stayed the proceeding
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`in September 2007.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia in March
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`2008, pleading the federal and Georgia trademark infringement, fraud, and tort
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`claims at issue in this appeal. Plaintiffs complaint seeks a permanent injunction
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`enjoining Defendants from all future use of the “Dantarma’s” mark and the
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`cancellation of Defendants’ federal trademark registration, among other relief.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`could not establish the likelihood of confusion necessary to subject them to liability
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Act, or fraud under Georgia law, nor could Plaintiff establish the intentional
`
`~
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 7 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 7 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`appropriation of likeness required to impose liability under Georgia tort law. The
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`district court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to all
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`counts. This appeal ensued.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`11. DISCUSSION
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`We review the grant of summary judgment d_e__r_1gm, applying the same legal
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~
`standards as the district court. Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs, Huntsville, Inc., 593
`
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`F.3d 1206, 1211 (1 1th Cir. 2010). In so doing, we view all evidence and draw all
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Q Summary judgment is
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`proper where “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.’’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Plaintiff appeals the district court’s disposition of four counts of his federal
`
`complaint: (1) false designation of origin under § 43(a) of the Lanharn Act, (2)
`~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`deceptive trade practices under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
`
`~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`(3) fraud under O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55, and (4) appropriation of likeness under
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Georgia tort law. However, we need not separately address whether Defendants
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs deceptive trade practices or fraud
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`claims. The district court held that the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Act and § 23-2-55 require a plaintiff to prove the same elements as a claim for
`
`~
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 8 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 8 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Because this is a question
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`of state law that the parties do not challenge on appeal, we treat the district court’s
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`holding as correct and merely determine whether the district court properly decided
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~
`the Lanham Act count. SE Jellibeans, Inc. V. Skating Qlubs of Ga., Inc., 716 F.2d
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`833, 839 (1 1th Cir. 1983). “If we determine that the district court decided the
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Lanham Act count properly, we will also affirm its decision on the Georgia
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`deceptive trade practices [and fraud] counts.” LL Thus, we first address Plaintiff’ s
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`Lanham Act claim and then consider his Georgia appropriation-of-likeness claim.
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`A. Trademark Infringement under § 43] at of the Lanham Act
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Trademarks are “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`thereof [used] to identily and distinguish [one’s] goods .
`
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
`.
`. from those
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
`manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods.” 15 U.S.C.
`
`~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`§ 1127.3 Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act creates a federal cause of action for
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`3
`The parties consistently refer to this case as involving registered and common law
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`“trademarks” throughout their appellate briefs, but, because both parties use their marks in
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`association with services in addition to goods bearing the restaurants’ names, their marks are also
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`properly characterized as “service marks.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (Service marks are “any word,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof [used] .
`.
`. to identify and distinguish the
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`services of one person .
`.
`. from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services .
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
`. .”). The analysis is the same for service mark and trademark infiingernent. Frehling Enters,
`~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`Inc. v. Int’l Select Group, Inc,, 192 F.3d 1330, 1334 n.l (1 1th Cir. 1999) (“The infiingement
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`analysis is the same under both standards and courts thus treat the two terms as interchangeable
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`in adjudicating infiingement claims”). For simplicity and consistency, however, we will
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`continue to refer to this action as one for trademark, as opposed to service mark and trademark,
`~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`infringement.
`
`~
`.
`
`~
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-00975-TWT Document 62 Filed 08/16/10 Page 9 of 33
`Case 1:O8—cv—OO975—TWT Document 62
`Filed 08/16/10 Page 9 of 33
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`unfair competition by prohibiting the use in interstate commerce of any “word,
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`term, name, symbol or device, .
`
`~
`.
`
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`. or any false designation of origin .
`.
`. which is
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
`likely to cause confusion .
`
`~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`.
`. as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).“
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`To establish a prima facie case of trademark infringement under § 43(a), a plaintiff
`
`~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`must show “(1) that it had trademark rights in the mark or name at issue and (2)
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`that the other party had adopted a mark or name that was the same, or confusingly
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
`similar to its mark,