Mary Siceloff

Can the owner of renowned tequila brand Patrón prevent a former marketing and PR firm from listing it as a client on its website and discussing the services it provided?  Patrón believes it can and has sued its former marketing firm, The Reindeer Group, for trademark infringement in Federal court in Texas.

In 2009 Patrón engaged Reindeer to provide advertising agency services.  Patrón claims that under the terms of Reindeer’s engagement, Reindeer agreed that it would not display any work regarding the Patrón brands, nor display the Patrón marks, without Patrón’s prior written approval.  Reindeer’s engagement ended in December, 2011.

Patrón claims that despite the termination of its services, Reindeer was using the Patrón marks on its website and was claiming that Patrón was a current client.

Patrón claims that Reindeer failed to respond to letters from its counsel requesting that it cease the unauthorized use of the Patrón marks, thus necessitating the filing of a complaint.

In reading the complaint, it appears that this dispute is more about Reindeer’s billings than its use of the Patrón marks.  That said, Patrón makes a claim which, if upheld by the court, could impact how advertising agencies and other service professionals reference work performed for clients for marketing purposes.  Most advertising agencies get advance permission – usually within a written service agreement – to display the work as part of the firm’s portfolio.  Some firms, however, do not seek a client’s approval.  The outcome of Patrón’s claim could bring an end to that practice.

In its complaint for trademark infringement, Patrón claims that Reindeer’s listing of it on the Reindeer website and using the Patrón marks to refer to the work performed for Patrón as having

……harmed and continues to harm Patrón.  Such use deprives Patrón of the right to control its intellectual property, and to exclude unauthorized users — the core right of such property.  Moreover, Reindeer’s use of Patrón’s marks falsely suggests a connection between the two brands, which allows Reindeer to reap the benefits of the highly valuable Patrón name and all of the associated goodwill, but without Patrón’s permission.  This unauthorized use of Patrón’s marks diminishes the exclusivity of the marks, and threatens the marks’ source-identifying significance, and this damage is exceedingly difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

The Lanham Act provides that the holder of a registered trademark can file a trademark infringement claim against any person who, without the registered trademark holder’s consent, uses any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark, in commerce, in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services, where such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), “Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . .  is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person . . . shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”

Patrón claims that Reindeer’s conduct  “has caused and is likely to continue to cause purchasers or others to mistakenly believe that Reindeer is legitimately connected, affiliated or associated with Patrón, or that Patrón approves Reindeer’s services, which is not the case.  Consumers who encounter Reindeer’s website are likely to incorrectly believe that Reindeer currently is the exclusive provider of advertising services for Patrón.” So seemingly, Patrón has a strong claim against Reindeer…but maybe not.

Trademark law recognizes a defense where the mark is used only “to describe the goods or services of [a] party, or their geographic origin.” Courts have found that nominative trademark fair use exists where the defendant used the plaintiff’s mark simply to describe the plaintiff’s own product.  In the case of nominative trademark fair use, the original producer is deemed as a matter of law not to sponsor or endorse the third-party product or service that uses its mark in a descriptive manner.  The test for nominative trademark fair use requires the court to ask whether (1) the product was “readily identifiable” without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested he was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder.

In Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 411 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir., 1969), the Ninth Circuit applied nominative trademark fair use and found that in “advertising [the repair of Volkswagens, it] would be difficult, if not impossible, for [Church] to avoid altogether the use of the word ‘Volkswagen’ or its abbreviation ‘VW,’ which are the normal terms which, to the public at large, signify appellant’s cars.”   Church did not suggest to customers that he was part of the Volkswagen organization or that his repair shop was sponsored or authorized by VW; he merely used the words “Volkswagen” and “VW” to convey information about the types of cars he repaired.  Therefore, his use of the Volkswagen trademark was not an infringing use.

In applying nominative trademark fair use to Reindeer’s use of the Patrón marks, a court would ask whether (1) Reindeer could describe the work it performed for Patrón without using the Patrón marks; (2) in describing the past work it performed for Patrón, did Reindeer use more of the Patrón marks than necessary to convey the information; or (3) whether Reindeer’s use of the Patrón marks in describing the services it provided for Patrón falsely suggested it was sponsored or endorsed by Patrón.  In a general sense, it would be difficult, if not impossible for Reindeer, or any other service provider who provides services to Patrón, to describe the services without using the Patrón marks.  Assuming Reindeer can get past the claim that it was contractually prohibited from using the Patrón marks without Patrón’s approval, Reindeer might have a good shot at putting Patrón’s trademark claim back in the bottle.

On September 26, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to review in a unanimous en banc decision a panel Federal Circuit decision affirming that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) at the Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) could hear new evidence during a trial, evidence that was not cited by the Board in its decision to institute review under the America Invents Act (“AIA”).  In so doing, the Federal Circuit reasoned “[t]he introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings and, as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it, the introduction of such evidence is perfectly permissible.”

The patents at issue in the case are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,351,410 (“the ’410 patent”) and 7,655,226 (“the ’226 patent”), both entitled “Treatment of Pompe’s Disease,” and are directed to treating Pompe’s disease with injections of human acid α-glucosidase.  Pompe’s disease is a genetic disease caused by a complete or partial lack of the lysosomal enzyme acid α-glucosidase (“GAA”).  In a healthy individual, GAA breaks down glycogen, a larger molecule, into glucose.  A person with Pompe’s disease has reduced levels of GAA, or no GAA at all, and is unable to break down glycogen into glucose.  This inability results in glycogen accumulating in the muscles of affected patients in excessive amounts.  There are two forms of Pompe’s disease: early-onset and late onset.  Early onset occurs in infants shortly after birth and is usually fatal before one year because excess glycogen accumulates in the muscles and causes cardiac or respiratory failure.  Those with late onset develop the disease after infancy and have progressive muscle weakness and respiratory issues caused by the glycogen buildup in the muscles, but do not typically develop the severe cardiac symptoms associated with early onset.

In 2013, Biomarin, the petitioner, filed petitions requesting inter partes review of the ’410 and ’226 patents.  The Board granted review on two different obviousness grounds for each challenged claim in each patent.  In its final written decisions, the Board found by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’410 and ’226 patents would have been obvious.  In so doing, he Board cited references in its final written decisions that were not specifically included in the combinations of prior art on which the Board instituted review.

On appeal, Genzyme, the patent owner, argued that the Board violated the requirements of notice and an opportunity to respond found in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  Genzyme argued that in finding that the claims at issue were unpatentable, the Board relied on “facts and legal arguments” that were not set forth in the institution decisions.  Therefore, according to Genzyme, it was denied notice “of the issues to be considered by the Board and an opportunity to address the facts and legal arguments on which the Board’s patentability determination [would] rest.”

The Federal Circuit rejected this argument because the Board’s decision to institute review does not need to refer to every bit of evidence that is relied on by the Board in its final written decision.  The Federal Circuit reasoned “there is no requirement, either in the Board’s regulations, in the APA, or as a matter of due process, for the institution decision to anticipate and set forth every legal or factual issue that might arise in the course of the trial.”

Moreover, the Federal Circuit found “Genzyme has not shown that the Board’s decisions rested on any factual or legal issues as to which Genzyme was denied notice or an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful point in the proceedings.”  Indeed, the Federal Circuit noted that Genzyme itself referred to the disputed prior art in its patent owner responses to the petitions.  Therefore, the Federal Circuit found “Genzyme had ample notice that the references were in play as potentially relevant evidence and that the Board might well address the parties’ arguments regarding those references in its final written decisions.”  The Federal Circuit also noted that despite having notice of the prior art, Genzyme failed to take advantage of its procedural options to seek to exclude that evidence or further respond before the Board.

Finally, the Federal Circuit also noted the relatively limited use to which the Board put the disputed references.  Specifically, the Board used the references merely to describe the state of the art; and they were not among the prior art references that the Board relied upon to establish any claim limitations.  Thus, the Federal Circuit reasoned it has previously “made clear that the Board may consider a prior art reference to show the state of the art at the time of the invention, regardless of whether that reference was cited in the Board’s institution decision.”

This case serves as a warning to both petitioners and patent owners alike when faced with patent review under the AIA.  For patent owners, do not expect to able to exclude evidence or arguments raised at trial after the fact simply because the exact contours of the evidence or arguments were not raised in the petitions or the Board decision to institute review.  Instead, take advantage of all pro-active measures along the way, such as motions to exclude, motions seeking additional briefing, and so on.  For petitioners, be careful relying too heavily on evidence or arguments not raised in the petitions or cited in the Board’s decision to institute review.  Although successful here, one could argue the results may be different if patent owner had no notice of the references, did not have any opportunity to previously object, or the references had a significant substantive role in the Board’s decision, such as to establish claim limitations.