Loyola Professors Commenting on SCOTUS News

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles professors are commenting on the news arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court today:

GRANT OF CERT

Gill v. Whitford (Wisconsin gerrymandering case)

• Professor Jessica Levinson: Levinson teaches Money, Politics & the Supreme Court and serves as president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission. 
• Professor Justin Levitt: Levitt is a national renowned scholar on redistricting who runs the website, All About Redistricting. 

OPINIONS

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (civil procedure/personal jurisdiction)

• Professor Adam Zimmerman: “In terms of impact, I think this case is kind of the sleeper case of the term,” says the complex litigation expert and Gerald Rosen Fellow. “It's going to impact thousands of cases in state MDLs, class actions and, I think, federal MDL litigation (which comprises nearly 40% of all cases in our federal courts.)” Zimmerman’s immediate reaction to the opinion is available online via @Adam_Zimmerman. 
• Professors Allan Ides & Simona Grossi: The civil procedure experts filed an amicus brief in the case (below). 

Matal v. Tam (The Slants case; disparagement clause in trademark approval/First Amendment)

• Professor Justin Levitt: This case decides that the Federal Trademark Office can't refuse to register a trademark that may ‘disparage’ or ‘bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute’ individuals or groups,” writes the constitutional law expert. “The case follows a line of recent cases looking very skeptically at government laws or policies that burden speech -- and an even longer line of recent cases looking even more skeptically at government laws or policies that treat some private speech worse than others based on its content or viewpoint. The Court divided 4-4 on the precise legal framework, but all 8 Justices hearing the case (Justice Gorsuch wasn't yet on the Court when this was heard) agreed that the statute prohibiting registration of disparaging marks was out of bounds, and that the question wasn't particularly close. This impacts not only The Slants (which will be able to get their name trademarked), but also some other prominent and very controversial brands, like the Washington Redskins, whose trademark had been canceled as ‘disparaging’ in June 2014.” 
• Professor Jennifer Rothman: “The decision is no surprise. The 8-0 decision -- that Gorsuch did not participate in -- holds that the bar to registering trademarks that are deemed ‘disparaging’ or offensive is struck down. This means that The Slants can register their mark for their band, even if some view it as disparaging or insulting to Asian people, and it also means that the Washington Redskins marks which were cancelled for the same reason will be reinstated. The decision also likely eliminates the bar on registering marks that are scandalous or immoral."

Apple Fights for iPad Trademark Rights

By Professor Jeffery Atik

Apple's lawyers woke up last month to discover that its China-based iPad trademark litigation with Proview had spilled over to California's courts. On February 17, Proview sued Apple in state court in Santa Clara county, asserting that Apple had defrauded Proview of its IPAD trademarks registered in Europe and in key Asian markets. The California iPad litigation is not a trademark infringement case (Apple's U.S. rights to the iPad mark are not challenged) -- rather Proview disputes Apple's ownerships of the various foreign IPAD marks registered by Proview. Proview urges that its assignment of these marks to Apple be rescinded, due to what it considers to be Apple's fraud. With that said, the California litigation forms part of the larger conflict between the two firms -- which has occupied courts in Hong Kong and Shenzen, China -- and so reflects Proview's grand strategy to cloud Apple's claims to the iPad marks, either by resort to law or by subjecting Apple to public embarrassment. And here lies a tale of Apple's over-cleverness, in approaching Proview in the guise of IP Application Development Limited, a stealth UK company whose name's initials conveniently spell out "IPAD."

The iPad has developed into one of Apple's most important products, now accounting for 26 percent of Apple's gargantuan sales and defining a new category of computing device. The iPad trademark is thus one of Apple's most valuable assets. And so it seems difficult to recall that leading up to Steve Jobs's January 2010 introduction of the device, there was much fascination -- and much mystery -- as to what it would be called. When Steve asked his fans to welcome a "truly magical and revolutionary product," few could conceive how commonplace the term iPad would shortly become in our everyday vocabularies.

Recent litigation -- starting in China but now clouding Apple's claim to the iPad trademark in other Asian markets and Europe as well -- reveals that Apple took elaborate steps in the five months prior to the January 2010 launch to secure the iPad mark. Apple knew exactly where to look: back in 2005 it had a spat of litigation with a Chinese firm, Proview, over Apple's rights to the iPod trademark. Proview had a product line with a similar name: its IPAD. That dispute ended with a non-disclosed settlement and some lingering bad blood between the firms.

Rival Victorias battle for trademark in Transatlantic beer dispute

By Professor Jeffery Atik

On January 31, in yet another Transatlantic beer conflict, Europe's General Court upheld the determination of the European Trademark Office (OHIM) to deny the trademark registration of "Victoria de Mexico", a long-established beer brand from Mexico. Case T-205/10. Grupo Modelo, the owner of Victoria de Mexico, launched the Victoria de Mexico brand in the United States in 2010 and hoped to replicate this success in Europe. It shall not be. The European trademark application for "Victoria de Mexico" was rejected, due to the successful opposition of a rival Spanish beer, known as "Victoria". The Spanish Victoria has been marketed since 1928, and has held trademark registrations in Spain and Europe since 1994 and 2002 respectively.

Article 8(1)(b) of the European Trademark Regulation states that a trademark shall not be registered in the event of an opposition by a prior trademark proprietor where "because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trademark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trademarks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trademark is protected . . ."

The General Court upheld the Trademark Office's finding that the proposed "Victoria de Mexico" mark would cause a likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association, with the existing "Victoria" brand.

The General Court noted that the two marks -- "Victoria de Mexico" and "Victoria" -- would apply to the same product: beer. Given the identical product space, the likelihood of confusion is considerably heightened. In examining the two marks for similarities, the General Court, following European precedent, divided its analysis into three parts: visual, phonetic and conceptual. Further, the Court explicitly considered the perception of the marks by two idealized European beer consumers: one who understands Spanish (or another Romance language or even -- perhaps -- English) and one who does not. The challenge of protecting traditional trademarks, rooted in particular national languages, which now function across the multilingual European market is deftly explored.

In reviewing the two marks for visual similarity, the General Court concludes that the word "Victoria" is dominant in each -- and that the various other figurative elements found in the two marks are "common" and "banal". One trusts the two graphic artists have passed on, and so escape the sting of the General Court's evaluation of their work.