Abuse Of Process In A Lanham Act Suit May Trigger Award Of Attorneys' Fees

A recent opinion from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Andodyne Therapy, LLC) attempts to clarify when the prosecution or defense of a Lanham Act suit renders the case "exceptional," so as to allow for an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. In doing so, the court addressed the increasing trend of businesses in bringing or defending trademark infringement and false advertising lawsuits against competitors solely to obtain a competitive advantage independent of the outcome of the case. The court held that where a party is guilty of such "abuse of process," an award of attorneys' fees would be warranted. This summary further elaborates upon the court's reasoning and why businesses must exercise caution in bringing or defending against intellectual property claims under the Lanham Act.

The Court's Opinion

Anodyne, the seller of a medical device, was the prevailing party in the underlying false advertising lawsuit brought against it by its customer, Nightingale. The trial court awarded Anodyne the attorneys' fees it incurred pursuant to a specific provision of the Lanham Act, which allows for an award to the prevailing party in "exceptional cases." Nightingale appealed this award to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

In tackling whether the case was exceptional enough to sustain the award of attorneys' fees, the court was perplexed by the varying standards used by the other circuit courts of appeals to make this determination and that those standards were often too vague to be applied objectively.

Taking a step back to find some clarity, the court looked to the policy behind the Lanham Act's provision for attorneys' fees and found that a "practical concern is the potential for businesses to use Lanham Act litigation for strategic purposes -- not to obtain a judgment or defeat a claim but to obtain a competitive advantage independent of the outcome of the case by piling litigation costs on a competitor."

In light of this policy, the court arrived at the following conclusion as to when a case under the Lanham Act is to be deemed exceptional so as to warrant an award of attorneys' fees: (1) If the defendant prevails and the plaintiff was guilty of abuse of process; or (2) If the plaintiff prevails and the defendant had no defense, but persisted in trademark infringement or false advertising to impose costs on the plaintiff.

In further explaining this standard, the court explained that abuse of process is the use of litigation for an improper purpose, whether or not the claim is colorable, often to compel the victim to yield on some matter not involved in the suit. The court found that predatory initiation of a suit is the same as predatory resistance to valid Lanham Act claims. To justify an award, the party seeking it must show that his opponent's claim or defense was "objectively unreasonable." In other words, the claim or defense was pursued not to obtain a favorable judgment, but only to impose disproportionate costs on his opponent or for purposes of extortion.

In addressing the facts of the case before it, the court noted that Nightingale had brought a Lanham Act claim that had no merit. The court held that what made the case exceptional, however, was the fact that Nightingale had initiated the claim only to coerce Anodyne into reducing the price of its medical devices sold to Nightingale. The court sustained the award of attorneys' fees to Anodyne.

What This Means For You

Though this opinion is binding only in the Seventh Circuit, other jurisdictions may certainly heed its well reasoned approach. Courts do not look kindly upon businesses that use litigation to improperly gain a market advantage. If your business is faced with the prosecution or defense of Lanham Act claims, it would be prudent to take a step back and carefully examine the merits and reasonableness of each side's respective positions to determine whether the case is merely an abuse of process.

-- Anuj Desai, Esq.

Not If, But How

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP has significant experience in intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, and copyright. Do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of help to you.

Please visit our web site for more information: www.agg.com.

1-800 Contacts Seeing Red Over Alleged Trademark Infringement

Can a company purchase a competitor’s trademark as a keyword to help its Internet search results? These are murky legal waters, and contact lens distributor 1-800 Contacts has waded into them again. A frequent litigant over use of its trademarks, 1-800 Contacts just sued the Walgreen drugstore chain in federal district court in Utah. 1-800 Contacts believes consumers are confused when they run a search on variants of 1-800 contacts, and in their results they see a link for Walgreen’s website and contact lens offerings. As of today, I confirmed that Walgreen’s website appeared on the right of the screen in search results for searches under “1-800 Contacts,” and “1-800Contacts” but not under “1 800 Contacts.” When it did appear, it was as a sponsored link.

Whether 1-800 Contacts succeeds will have a lot to do with what viewers of these results think about Walgreen’s relationship to 1-800 Contacts. The law is still not settled when it comes to how trademarks work in the context of Internet search engines, but the major premise of trademark law is that it protects a company’s goodwill and brand identity against competitive confusion. Even though 1-800 Contacts has filed suit in Utah, where the governing case law is favorable and allows a claim based on purchase of a competitor’s trademark, 1-800 Contacts still has to show that consumers are being confused. If the sponsored link is the only basis for confusion, 1-800 Contacts has some problems. I suspect most Internet users are now aware of the difference between organic search results, based upon a search engine’s algorithm, and sponsored links, for which a competitor pays.

There’s another interesting twist. The Complaint implies that though Walgreen itself may have stopped purchasing 1-800 Contact’s trademarks, Walgreen has an obligation to go further and affirmatively purchase “negative keywords” to make sure that its website does not come up in searches for 1-800 Contacts. In effect, that means paying Google not to display the Walgreen’s site when someone searches on certain terms. But Walgreen does not have any control over the algorithm used by Google or other search engines. In responding to 1-800 Contact’s claim, then, it can fairly pose the question: Should a business be required to handicap itself in the market, and in the process, restrict the information that consumers have about an alternative source of products?

--Andrew Flake

Andrew B. Flake is a partner in the Litigation Group at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP (andrew.flake@agg.com). Our firm serves the business needs of growing public and private companies, helping clients turn legal challenges into business opportunities. We don't just tell you if something is possible, we show you how to make it happen. Please visit our website for more information, www.agg.com.

New Wireless False Advertising Litigation: A Reminder to Look at "The Big Picture"

The battle that broke out last week over the accuracy of Verizon Wireless’ new cell phone coverage campaign is not focused solely on the language of Verizon’s advertisements. It is focused on the images, and specifically, on two coverage maps and the message they convey. In two television pieces and on its website, Verizon uses side-by-side maps of the US with color coding to show 3G coverage. The maps emphasize what Verizon believes is its overwhelming advantage over AT&T in territorial 3G coverage. The ads parody the popular iPhone advertisements with the refrain that to explain spotty AT&T coverage, “there’s a map for that.”


AT&T, locked in competition in its most important quarter of the year, is not laughing. In a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Atlanta, AT&T claims that the maps mislead its customers “into believing that when they are

in the areas depicted by large swaths of white or blank space in AT&T’s ‘3G’ coverage maps, they have no coverage whatsoever.” The lawsuit, at least at this point, is actually fairly narrow. AT&T is not claiming anything in the ads is actually false but believes the overall piece is still misleading. Even though Verizon added the phrase, in small font, “Voice & data services available outside 3G coverage areas,” and even though the map is based on actual coverage data, AT&T suggests that the maps convey the complete absence of coverage in the white areas. It asks the Court, at least in its initial request for a temporary restraining order, to stop Verizon from displaying the maps.

To obtain an injunction where no statement is literally false, AT&T is required to put forward some evidence of deception. Usually in federal advertising cases, that evidence takes the form of consumer focus group or survey data. Here, AT&T offers a survey it says shows a 23.5% level of confusion among wireless customers: Assuming AT&T’s survey is valid and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted survey principles, that data is more than enough to justify a finding of confusion. Verizon has not yet filed its response, but it will be interesting to see the competing testimony and market research on the effect of the advertisements. And certainly, the district court will be looking at more than just deception in making its decision.
We’ll continue to follow the dispute and report on the first round. Argument is scheduled for later this month – though we’re certain AT&T would have preferred an earlier hearing – so we should have some early insight fairly soon. If AT&T loses its early TRO request, its momentum is gone and much of the steam leaves its suit.

Regardless of the outcome, though, the case provides a good reminder: If your company sells products or services in a competitive market, especially head-to-head using comparative advertising, keep your eye on more than just the accuracy of advertising copy. Also look to the advertising’s overall impact and impression, and ask what messages a reasonable customer will take away. For purposes of this kind of competitive advertising review, marketing-savvy businesses should be aware that federal law prohibits not just false, but misleading advertising. Even if the words themselves literally true, they may imply a false message, especially when the advertising piece is considered as a whole.

--Andrew Flake

Andrew B. Flake is a partner in the Litigation Group at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP (andrew.flake@agg.com). Our firm serves the business needs of growing public and private companies, helping clients turn legal challenges into business opportunities. We don't just tell you if something is possible, we show you how to make it happen. Please visit our website for more information, http://www.agg.com/.

Tax Preparation Firm That Dumped Sensitive Customer Records Faces Liability

If your company handles sensitive customer information, as most companies these days do, a recent lawsuit, Pinero v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., pending in a federal court in Louisiana bears consideration. The Pinero case reminds businesses that their privacy policies and protocols need to be up to date and adhered to by employees. Negligently exposing private customer information to the public may lead to liability and a public relations nightmare for your company.

The Lawsuit

The plaintiff in the lawsuit was a customer of one of the defendants, a popular tax preparation franchisee. In 2005, before engaging the defendant franchisee to provide tax preparation services, the plaintiff was shown the franchisee’s privacy policy, and was assured that her personal information would be safeguarded.

In 2008, however, someone found the plaintiff’s tax records, along with those of more than a hundred other individuals, in a dumpster behind the franchisee’s retail store. The records had not been shredded. A news station broke the story and returned the tax records to the plaintiff. The franchisee claimed that the tax records were stolen.

The plaintiff, likely angry that her confidential information had been disposed of so irresponsibly, brought suit against the franchisee and franchisor, setting forth a variety of claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and violation of state statutes. In a series of rulings, the court dismissed some of the plaintiff’s claims, but did allow the plaintiff to proceed with claims of fraud, violation of Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and an invasion of privacy claim against the defendants.

What This Means For You

The Pinero lawsuit is a reminder that companies must handle sensitive customer information with great care. Not only can improper exposure of private customer information lead to liability, it can also create a public relations nightmare for your company.

Privacy policies should be drafted carefully to define what constitutes private information and should set forth the company’s obligations and the customer’s rights. These policies should also be updated periodically to stay current with changes in law, technology, or to keep up with your company’s products and services.

Adequate security technology should be employed to safeguard the storage and transfer of electronic records of customer information. Employees should also be trained and routinely refreshed as to what constitutes “private” information, how that information should be handled and disposed, and their responsibility in ensuring that the information remains private.

Of course, despite the strictest measures, private customer information may be compromised inadvertently or through criminal acts such as hacking. In that situation, swift action must be taken to resolve the problem. In certain cases, it may be make sense to proactively inform the customer about the breach and the steps you are taking to remedy the situation.

-- Anuj Desai, Esq.

Not If, but How

Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP has significant experience in the area of privacy law, ranging from drafting privacy policies, counseling clients about privacy security technology solutions, as well as resolving related disputes. We serve the business needs of growing public and private companies, helping clients turn legal challenges into business opportunities. We don't just tell you if something is possible, we show you how to make it happen.

Please visit our website for more information, http://www.agg.com/.