Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Wudi) and Wai L. Wong, along with Wong’s business entity GT Omega Racing, Ltd. (collectively Wong), were involved in a trademark dispute over the use of the "GTRACING" and "GT OMEGA RACING" marks. Wudi registered the "GTRACING" trademark in 2017, and Wong initiated cancellation proceedings, claiming prior use of a similar mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of Wong in 2020. Wudi sought review in the Eastern District of Virginia, leading to a settlement agreement in 2021, which included geographic and product-based restrictions on Wudi’s use of the "GTRACING" mark, particularly in Europe.The district court granted a stay pending compliance with the settlement agreement. Wong later alleged that Wudi breached the agreement by violating social media restrictions within the European Carve-Out. The district court found Wudi in violation and ordered specific performance. Wudi appealed, and the Fourth Circuit remanded for further proceedings, requiring the district court to comply with procedural requirements for injunctive relief.On remand, the district court issued an injunction, finding that Wudi breached the settlement agreement by using prohibited terms on social media within the European Carve-Out. The court applied the eBay factors, concluding that Wong suffered irreparable harm, monetary damages were inadequate, the balance of hardships favored Wong, and the public interest supported enforcing the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s injunction. The court held that the district court had the authority to enforce the settlement agreement, the eBay factors were properly applied, and Wudi’s contentions regarding extraterritoriality, parol evidence, unclean hands, and attorney’s fees were without merit. The injunction was upheld, requiring Wudi to comply with the settlement agreement’s terms. View "Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong" on Justia Law

Westmont Living, Inc., a California corporation operating retirement communities and assisted living facilities, filed a lawsuit against Retirement Unlimited, Inc. (RUI), a Virginia corporation, alleging trademark infringement. Westmont Living claimed that RUI's use of the name "The Westmont at Short Pump" for its new facility in Virginia created a likelihood of confusion with Westmont Living's federally registered "Westmont Living" trademarks, violating the Lanham Act and related laws. Westmont Living sought an injunction and damages.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of RUI, concluding that consumer confusion was impossible because the parties operated in entirely distinct geographic markets. The court relied on the Second Circuit's decision in Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., which held that no likelihood of confusion exists when parties use their marks in separate and distinct markets.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred by relying solely on the geographic separation of the parties' physical facilities without considering other relevant factors that might bear on the likelihood of confusion. The court emphasized that modern advertising and the national scope of both parties' marketing efforts necessitate a broader analysis. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the various factors relevant to determining the likelihood of confusion, including the parties' competitive marketing, the locations from which they solicit and draw customers, and the scope of their reputations. View "Westmont Living, Inc. v. Retirement Unlimited, Inc." on Justia Law

Moke America LLC and Moke International Limited, along with Moke USA, LLC, are competing for the U.S. trademark rights to the "MOKE" mark, used for their low-speed, open-air vehicles. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that "MOKE" is a generic term for these vehicles, meaning it cannot be a trademark owned by either party. This finding was based on the history of the Moke vehicles, which were originally produced by the British Motor Corporation (BMC) and later by other manufacturers, and the term "Moke" becoming synonymous with a style of vehicle.The district court's decision followed a bench trial where Moke America failed to prove its priority of use. The court then considered whether the MOKE mark was distinctive or generic. Both parties argued that the mark was inherently distinctive, but the court found it to be generic based on the evidence presented, including the parties' marketing efforts and the testimony of a Moke America witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court correctly placed the burden on the parties to prove that "MOKE" is not a generic term. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the evidence was insufficient to either affirm or outright reverse the district court's finding of genericness. The court noted that more evidence is needed to determine whether "MOKE" is a generic term or an inherently distinctive mark that was abandoned by its original owner, BMC.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to gather additional evidence on the distinctiveness or genericness of the "MOKE" mark. The parties will continue to bear the burden of proving that the mark is not generic. The court suggested that appointing a disinterested expert witness might be helpful in resolving the issue. View "Moke America LLC v. Moke International Limited" on Justia Law

Simply Wireless, Inc., a Virginia telecommunications company, sued T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. for trademark infringement, alleging that T-Mobile had infringed on its common law trademark "SIMPLY PREPAID." Simply Wireless had used the trademark from 2002 to 2008 and resumed its use in 2012. T-Mobile began using the same trademark in 2014 and applied to register it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Simply Wireless filed a competing application and subsequently launched a revamped website under the trademark.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to T-Mobile, ruling that Simply Wireless had abandoned the trademark due to nonuse from 2009 to 2011. The court found that Simply Wireless had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of abandonment, which is triggered by three consecutive years of nonuse under 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Simply Wireless appealed, arguing that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding its intent to resume use of the trademark during the period of nonuse.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and vacated the district court's summary judgment order. The appellate court found that Simply Wireless had presented sufficient evidence, including a detailed declaration from its CEO and corroborating documents, to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding its intent to resume use of the trademark during the period of nonuse. The court emphasized that the intent-to-resume-use inquiry is an intensely factual question and rarely amenable to summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit also rejected T-Mobile's alternative argument that the statutory abandonment test does not apply to common law trademarks, affirming that the test is applicable.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Simply Wireless, Inc v. T-Mobile US, Inc" on Justia Law

The case involves Bacardi & Company Limited and Bacardi USA, Inc. (collectively, Bacardi) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Bacardi claimed that the PTO violated Section 9 of the Lanham Act and its own regulations by renewing a trademark registration ten years after it expired. The trademark in question is the "HAVANA CLUB," originally registered by a Cuban corporation, José Arechabala, S.A. In 1960, the Cuban government seized the corporation's assets, and by 1974, the U.S. trademark registrations for HAVANA CLUB rum had expired. Later, a company owned by the Cuban government registered the HAVANA CLUB trademark in the U.S. for itself. Bacardi, which had bought the interest in the mark from Arechabala, filed its own application to register the HAVANA CLUB mark and petitioned the PTO to cancel the Cuban government-owned company's registration.The PTO denied Bacardi's application due to the Cuban government-owned company's preexisting registration, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied Bacardi's cancellation petition. Bacardi then filed a civil action challenging the TTAB's denial of cancellation. Meanwhile, the Cuban government-owned company's registration was set to expire in 2006, unless it renewed its trademark. However, due to a trade embargo, the company was not permitted to pay the required renewal fee without first obtaining an exception from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC denied the company's request for an exception, and the PTO notified the company that its registration would expire due to the failure to submit the renewal fee on time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment that dismissed Bacardi's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not foreclose an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action for judicial review of the PTO’s compliance with statutes and regulations governing trademark registration renewal. The court found that the Lanham Act does not expressly preclude judicial review of PTO registration renewal decisions or fairly implies congressional intent to do so. Therefore, the APA’s mechanism for judicial review remains available. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bacardi and Company Limited v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

The case involves TBL Licensing, LLC, commonly known as Timberland, and its attempt to register certain features of its popular boot design as trade dress under the Lanham Act. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to register the design, concluding it was not distinctive. Timberland appealed to the federal district court, which agreed with the USPTO and added that the design was impermissibly functional. The district court granted the USPTO's motion for summary judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the subset of design features that Timberland sought to register lacked distinctiveness in the public's view. The court did not decide on the issue of functionality. The court emphasized that the question was not whether the public recognizes the entire product as Timberland's boot, but whether the specific design features that Timberland sought to register have acquired a distinctive meaning in the public's view. View "TBL Licensing, LLC v. Vidal" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to grant a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Xactware Solutions, Inc. against Buildxact Software Limited in a trademark dispute. The case revolves around Xactware's desire to orally depose a Buildxact employee as part of opposition proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). All of Buildxact's employees are located in Australia.The court agreed with the district court's determination that it lacked authority to subpoena evidence that, under PTO rules, is inadmissible in internal PTO proceedings. The court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § 24, which allows district courts to subpoena testimony for use in any contested case in the Patent and Trademark Office, only empowers district courts to issue subpoenas for depositions that comply with PTO rules.The court rejected Xactware's argument that the PTO's rules contradict the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus exceed the PTO's statutory authority. The court found that the PTO rules and the Federal Rules serve different purposes and contexts, and that the PTO's rule-making authority under Section 23 of the Patent Act allows it to establish its rules for taking affidavits and depositions.The court concluded that a contrary ruling would significantly displace the PTO's authority to police its internal proceedings, and affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the subpoena. View "Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Buildxact Software Limited" on Justia Law

Two companies that operate in the real estate development industry have spent years embroiled in a dispute over their shared name: “Dewberry.” Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group to quell the latter’s use of several new insignias it developed as part of its rebrand. Dewberry Engineers owns federal trademark rights to the “Dewberry” mark and claims Dewberry Group’s rebranding efforts infringe that mark and breach an agreement struck between the sparring corporations over a decade ago. The district court sided with Dewberry Engineers in the proceedings below, assessing a nearly $43 million profit disgorgement award against Dewberry Group for its infringement, enjoining it from further breaches of its agreement with Dewberry Engineers, and ordering it to pay attorneys’ fees for forcing Dewberry Engineers to litigate an exceptional case of trademark infringement.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the parties share an identical, arbitrary dominant word and disclaim different suffixes (and prefixes in some cases) in the marks at issue. The record shows they also employ those marks in related, overlapping, and complementary services. Those details go some distance toward creating a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of either party’s “Dewberry” mark. Moreover, the court explained that despite Dewberry Group’s failure to calculate exact figures or provide evidence of deductions from infringement revenues for losses and expenses, the court equitably reduced the requested award by twenty percent to $42,975,725.60.  The court finds no error of fact or law suggesting the district court’s conclusions were an abuse of its discretion. View "Dewberry Engineers Inc. v. Dewberry Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants are a Swiss consortium, Interprofession du Gruyère (“IDG”), and a French consortium, Syndicat Interprofessionel du Gruyère (“SIG”) (together, “the Consortiums”), who believe that gruyere should only be used to label cheese that is produced in the Gruyère region of Switzerland and France. Seeking to enforce this limitation in the United States, the Consortiums filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to register the word “GRUYERE” as a certification mark. Appellees, the U.S. Dairy Export Council, Atalanta Corporation, and Intercibus, Inc. (together, “the Opposers”), opposed this certification mark because they believe the term is generic and, therefore, ineligible for such protection. The USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) agreed with the Opposers and held that “GRUYERE” could not be registered as a certification mark because it is generic. The Consortiums filed a complaint challenging the TTAB’s decision in the United States district court. The district court granted summary judgment for the Opposers on the same grounds as articulated in the TTAB’s decision.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed and concluded that that the term “GRUYERE” is generic as a matter of law. The court explained that the Consortiums have not brought evidence bearing on whether, at an earlier point in history, the term “GRUYERE” was in common use in the United States. But even assuming that was the case, this argument still fails. In sum, the Consortiums cannot overcome what the record makes clear: cheese consumers in the United States understand “GRUYERE” to refer to a type of cheese, which renders the term generic. View "Interprofession du Gruyere v. U.S. Dairy Export Council" on Justia Law