All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Playing for leverage in multi-jurisdictional IP disputes

Are you ready for a trademark battle pitched across multiple continents? Yesterday’s session Have Dispute Will Travel: Managing Multi-Jurisdictional Trademark Disputes showed what such an endeavor may look like and why coordination between jurisdictions is key.

The panelists presented a case study involving a fictitious guitar company, Hendrix Guitars, with each speaker playing a different role: Hendrix’s CEO, its in-house counsel, and its outside counsel in Europe and Asia.

Hendrix owns the ALLADIN mark in the United States, a Community Trade Mark in Europe and a mark in Hong Kong, where it has a sourcing office to work with its original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in China. Its United Kingdom-based rival Bowie guitars owns the mark ALLADIN SANE in the UK, Germany and China. Bowie’s marks in Germany and the UK predate Hendrix’s European Community mark.

Hendrix has traditionally sold in the U.S. while Bowie has been selling in the UK and Germany, but now both companies are keen to expand into each other’s markets. Bowie recently entered into a deal with the Iggy Pop Company in Detroit to distribute its products in the U.S.

Anessa Owen Kramer of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn acted as Hendrix’s CEO and asked her in-house counsel Jeremy Kaufman of Fox Entertainment Group to devise a strategy for dealing with Bowie. She has no interest in entering into a co-existence agreement.

Multiple options

Owen Kramer’s legal advisors laid out the various options in their jurisdictions. For example, Kaufman observed that in the U.S., there is usually a correlation between the aggressiveness of the response and its cost. An infringement suit would be the strongest response, but would rack up the bill. Challenging Bowie’s registrations at the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board would be less expensive, but the potential remedies would be much more limited. Another option, filing a preliminary injunction, may be an attractive solution, allowing Hendrix to get injunctive relief relatively quickly and at lower cost, although damages are not available.

Jeremy Dickerson of Burges Salmon in the UK considered Hendrix’s European options. He highlighted several danger spots, such as the fact that Bowie can use its national UK and German marks to attack Hendrix’s CTM. Options to consider include converting the CTM into national trade marks and also seeking a declaration of non-infringement in the UK.

Nick Redfearn of Rouse acted as outside Asia counsel and addressed issues in his region. For example, the lack of a registered trade mark in China may allow Bowie to file an infringement suit based on Hendrix’s OEM activities there. As Redfearn explained, the issue of whether manufacturing for export markets constitutes use of the mark in China is still unsettled, though he noted that several cases have found that it does not.

The panelists emphasized that coordination is key in disputes that span multiple countries. An argument made in one country may have consequences in others. For example, Dickerson warned that getting a declaration of non-infringement in the UK based on no likelihood of confusion may have a negative effect on Hendrix’s attempts to bring an infringement suit in the U.S., where it would try to make the opposite argument. On the other hand, Redfearn pointed out that a declaration of non-infringement in China may not have the same problem since that would be based on non-use.

Similarly, a well-planned action in one country can benefit your position in another. Dickerson and Kaufman pointed out that given that Hendrix’s position is strongest in the U.S., achieving a positive result there, such as securing a preliminary injunction, can give it leverage against Bowie in other jurisdictions.

Seeing these legal actions in a global business context is essential to a commercially successful resolution. As Owen Kramer pointed out, even though Hendrix’s CEO may not wish to settle, the reality is that often these disputes and actions in various countries are really a way for a company to improve its negotiation position and gain leverage for an eventual global agreement between the companies.

More from across our site

The FCA paper on equity markets follows on from the Wholesale Market Review’s push to reduce unnecessary complexity and costs
The UPC held a pilot training system for its new IT system in London last Thursday, June 30, and a full programme will follow later this year
In-house sources say clarity on what counts as lawful access to data will be key to the success of the UK’s new copyright exception
The attitude of ISPs continues to shift following a copyright claim filed at the England and Wales High Court
The EU is seeking to create a single market for data and trade secrets owners will need to prepare early, according to IP lawyers at Osborne Clarke
In-house and private practice counsel discuss issues with pre-grant opposition in India, including the rise of non-speaking orders and straw man filings
The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree