X : SESAME WORKSHOP, : : 18 CV ______(______) Plaintiff, : : - Against - : : STX PRODUCTIONS, LLC, STX FINANCING, : LLC, and STX FILMWORKS, INC., : : Defendants
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:18-cv-04597-VSB Document 10 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------ x : SESAME WORKSHOP, : : 18 CV ______ (______) Plaintiff, : : - against - : : STX PRODUCTIONS, LLC, STX FINANCING, : LLC, and STX FILMWORKS, INC., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------ x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6516 (212) 833-1100 May 24, 2018 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sesame Workshop 3355644.1 Case 1:18-cv-04597-VSB Document 10 Filed 05/25/18 Page 2 of 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................3 Sesame and Sesame Street ...................................................................................................3 The Happytime Murders Marketing Campaign and Resulting Confusion and Tarnishment of Sesame’s Mark ...................................................................6 Henson Informs Sesame About Defendants’ Marketing Campaign, And Defendants Refuse Sesame’s Request to Stop Using The “NO SESAME. ALL STREET.” Tagline ...................................................................11 STATEMENT OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ........................................................................14 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................14 I. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM USING SESAME’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN MARKETING THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS ........................................................................................................................14 A. Sesame Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Claims......................................15 1. Defendants Are Likely Violating Lanham Act Sections 32 and 43(a) ...........................................................................................................15 a. Sesame Owns Valid Trademarks ...................................................15 b. Sesame Is Likely to Show Likelihood of Confusion .....................16 2. Defendants Are Diluting and Tarnishing Sesame’s Mark .........................23 a. Sesame’s Trademark Is Famous and Distinctive ...........................24 b. Defendants Are Tarnishing Sesame’s Mark ..................................25 c. Defendants Are Blurring Sesame’s Mark ......................................25 3. Sesame Is Likely to Succeed on Its State Law Claims ..............................26 B. Sesame Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent a TRO and Preliminary Injunction ...............................................................................................................26 C. At a Minimum, There Are Sufficiently Serious Questions Going to the Merits, and the Balance of Hardships Tips Decidedly Toward Sesame ................28 D. The Public Interest Weighs in Favor of a TRO and a Preliminary Injunction ...............................................................................................................29 E. Any Bond Required Should be de minimis ...........................................................30 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................31 3355644.1 Case 1:18-cv-04597-VSB Document 10 Filed 05/25/18 Page 3 of 36 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Am. Electromedics Corp. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., No. 87-CV-1373, 1988 WL 12776 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 1988) ................................................28 Blakeman v. The Walt Disney Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 288 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) .......................................................................14 Bulman v. 2BKCO, Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .............................................................................. passim Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd, 598 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................15 Correction Officers’ Benev. Ass’n, Inc. v. Palmieri, No. 11 CIV. 7664 (LAK), 2012 WL 279484 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2012) ..................................22 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1979).....................................................................................................22 De Venustas v. Venustas Int’l, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 4530 (LTS) (THK), 2007 WL 2597122 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2007) ..............17, 23 Diesel S.P.A. v. Does, No. 14-CV-4592 (KMW), 2016 WL 96171 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2016) ............................. passim Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................30 Famous Joe’s Pizza, Inc. v. Vitale, No. 10 CIV 8861 (JSR), 2010 WL 5490893 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2010) .................................21 FTA Mkt. Inc. v. Vevi, Inc., No. 11 CV 4789 VB, 2012 WL 383945 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2012) ...........................................26 Hasbro, Inc. v. Lanard Toys, Ltd., 858 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................27 Heartland Trademarks, Ltd. v. Dr. Flax LLC, No. 5:17-CV-795, 2017 WL 3278905 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017) ................................21, 27, 28 Kelly v. Evolution Mkts., Inc., 626 F. Supp. 2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................................................................................14 ii 3355644.1 Case 1:18-cv-04597-VSB Document 10 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 36 Lambda Elecs. Corp. v. Lambda Tech., Inc., 515 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)...........................................................................................20 Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc., 192 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................16, 17 Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 426 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................18, 26 Marshak v. Sheppard, 666 F. Supp. 590 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)...........................................................................................18 Mint, Inc. v. Amad, No. 10 CIV. 9395 SAS, 2011 WL 1792570 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2011) ....................................29 Mobileye, Inc. v. Picitup Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ..........................................................................16, 17, 18 NBA Props. v. Untertainment Records LLC, No. 99 Civ. 2933 (HB), 1999 WL 335147 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1999)............................. passim N.Y.C. Triathlon, LLC v. NYC Triathlon Club, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .............................................................................. passim Pfizer Inc. v. Sachs, 652 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................. passim Rado Watch Co., Ltd. v. ABC Co., No. 92 Civ. 3657 (PKL), 1992 WL 142747 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 1992) .....................................23 Register.Com, Inc. v. Domain Registry of Am., Inc., No. 02 CIV. 6915 (NRB), 2002 WL 31894625 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2002) .............................21 Rogers v. Ecolor Studio, No. ll-CV-4493 (ARR) (RER), 2013 WE 752256 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2013) ...........................14 Saban Entm’t, Inc. v. 222 World Corp., 865 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) .........................................................................................16 Time, Inc. v. Petersen Publ’g Co. L.L.C., 173 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................15 Tradescape.com v. Shivaram, 77 F. Supp. 2d 408 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ........................................................................................28 Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Unger, 14 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ........................................................................................21 iii 3355644.1 Case 1:18-cv-04597-VSB Document 10 Filed 05/25/18 Page 5 of 36 Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2003)...................................................................................17, 19, 20, 23 Statutes and Rules 15 U.S.C. § 1065 ............................................................................................................................15 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ............................................................................................................................15 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) .......................................................................................................................16 15 U.S.C. § 1125 ............................................................................................................................15 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1) ...................................................................................................................23 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B) .......................................................................................................24,