18-123456 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT ———————––—— Gotham Distribution, Inc., Appellant, –against– Wolf Television, Inc., Appellee. —————––——––—— ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ———————––––—— BENCH MEMORANDUM OF ALL PARTIES NYIPLA MOOT COURT JULY 11, 2018 Robert J. Rando, Esq. THE RANDO LAW FIRM PC. 6800 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 120W Syosset, NY 11791 (516) 799-9800 (o) (516) 799-9820 (f) Moot Court Organizer (other counsel listed on the Signature Page) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1 A. Questions Presented .......................................................................................................1 B. Parties .............................................................................................................................1 C. Procedural Background ..................................................................................................2 D. Factual Background .......................................................................................................3 E. Legal Standards ..............................................................................................................4 II. ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT GOTHAM DISTRIBUTION ............................................5 A. The Rogers v. Grimaldi Test Does Not Apply or Was Misapplied ...............................5 1. The District Court’s application of Rogers is reversible error ..............................5 a. The Rogers test does not apply to commercial uses. ...................................6 b. Rogers cannot apply without fully considering the likelihood of confusion......................................................................................................9 2. The Rogers test does not apply unless the expressive work refers to the other party. ..........................................................................................................11 B. The District Court Improperly Assessed the Likelihood of Confusion. ......................14 1. The District Court inappropriately applied forward confusion analysis to Gotham Distribution’s reverse confusion claims. ...............................................14 2. The District Court erred by not deferring to the jury’s finding of likelihood of confusion. ......................................................................................17 a. The jury did not clearly err in finding likely confusion, and the district court should not have overturned the verdict. ...............................17 b. Even if this Court determined that likely confusion is a mixed question of law and fact, reversal is still warranted...................................18 III. ARGUMENT BY APPELLEE WOLF ................................................................................20 A. The Rogers v. Grimaldi Test Was Properly Applied. ..................................................20 1. The District Court correctly applied the Rogers test, because the title Gotham is artistically relevant to the underlying work, and the title is not explicitly misleading ...........................................................................................20 a. The Rogers test is applicable to works in a series because the test “is generally applicable to Lanham Act claims against works of artistic expression”.....................................................................................21 b. The commercial or promotional use of Gotham does not affect the application of the Rogers test ....................................................................23 i 2. The Rogers test does not require Wolf’s use of Gotham to refer to Gotham Distribution ...........................................................................................24 B. The District Court Properly Assessed the Likelihood of Confusion ...........................25 1. It is appropriate to weigh the weakness of a senior user’s mark against a finding of likely reverse confusion. ....................................................................25 a. The Second Circuit law frequently weighs weak marks against a finding of a likelihood of reverse confusion. .............................................25 b. The reasoning of other circuits is inconsistent with Second Circuit precedent. ...................................................................................................27 2. The District Court Gave Appropriate Deference to the Jury Verdict. ................28 a. The final determination of whether confusion is likely is a matter of law based upon the weighing of multiple factors. .................................28 b. The Hana Financial decision does not abrogate the Second Circuit’s analysis of confusion as a matter of law. ....................................29 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000)...............................................................................................16, 27 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L & L Wings, Inc., 962 F.2d 316 (4th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................18 Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 1995).........................................................................................................5 Attrezzi, LLC v. Maytag Corp., 436 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................16 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1988).....................................................................................................14 In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................29 Cliff Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ’g Grp., Inc., 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989).........................................................................................11, 13, 21 DC Comics, Inc. v. Filmation Assocs., 486 F. Supp. 1273 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).........................................................................................30 Denimafia Inc. v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 2014 WL 814532 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ....................................................................................26, 27 Dita, Inc. v. Mendez, No. 10-cv-6277 PSG ................................................................................................................14 Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84985 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2018) ............................................13, 24, 25 Dreamwerks Prod. Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................16 E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.2008) ..................................................................................6, 13, 22, 24 Evans v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 7 F. App’x 270 (4th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................8 iii Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................15 Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 947 F. Supp. 2d 922 (N.D. Ind. 2013), aff’d, 763 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2014) .....................13, 24 Gameologist Grp., LLC v. Sci. Games Int’l, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 141 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d, 508 F. App’x 31 (2d Cir. 2013) ........................15 Gen. Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc., 468 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................28 Guthrie Healthcare Sys. v. ContextMedia, Inc., 826 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2016)...........................................................................................18, 28, 29 Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907 (2015) ...............................................................................................5, 19, 29, 30 Heirs of Estate of Jenkins v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 706 (E.D. Va. 2000) ..........................................................................................8 J.T. Colby & Co. Inc. v. Apple Inc., 586 Fed.Appx. 8 (2d. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................................26 Kiedis v. Showtime Networks, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124334 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) ............................................9, 10, 22 Lang v. Retirement Living Pub. Co., Inc., 949 F. 2d 576 (2d Cir. 1991)....................................................................................4, 17, 25, 26 LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., 209 F.Supp.3d 612, 668 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ...............................................................................26 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... passim Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F. 3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................12, 21, 22 Mil-Spec Monkey, Inc. v. Activision