Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantliabilitymotionsummary judgmenttrademarkmotion for summary judgment

liabilitymotionsummary judgmenttrademarkmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Ohio State University v. Redbubble, Inc., 369 F.Supp.3d 840, 365 Ed. Law Rep. 327

Facts

The Ohio State University, which holds trademarks including 'BUCKEYES' and 'OHIO STATE,' filed a lawsuit against Redbubble, Inc., an online marketplace, for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violation of right of publicity. Ohio State claimed that Redbubble facilitated the sale of products that infringed on its trademarks. Both parties moved for summary judgment, with Ohio State asserting that Redbubble was liable for the alleged infringements. The court examined whether Redbubble's actions constituted 'use' of the trademarks in commerce.

The parties do not dispute the facts underlying this case. The Ohio State University ('OSU' or 'Ohio State') holds several registered trademarks. These include: (1) 'BUCKEYES,' (2) 'OHIO STATE,' (3) 'OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,' (4) URBAN MEYER, and (5) several other images. (ECF No. 1).

Issue

Did Redbubble, Inc. use Ohio State University's trademarks in commerce, thereby committing trademark infringement under the Lanham Act?

Rule

To establish trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid trademark; (2) unauthorized use of the trademark in commerce by the defendant; (3) use of the trademark in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services; and (4) likelihood of consumer confusion. Additionally, counterfeiting is a subset of trademark infringement, requiring a finding of infringement first.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Redbubble's role as a facilitator of sales constituted 'use' of the trademarks in commerce. It noted that Redbubble did not take title to the merchandise, maintain an inventory, or control pricing, which are indicators of being a seller. The court compared Redbubble's operations to those of Amazon, which has been found not liable for direct infringement as it merely facilitates sales. The court concluded that Redbubble's actions did not meet the threshold for 'use' under the Lanham Act.

Conclusion

The court granted Redbubble's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Redbubble did not use Ohio State's trademarks in commerce and therefore was not liable for trademark infringement.

For the foregoing reasons, Ohio State's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is hereby DENIED. Redbubble's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. This case is CLOSED.

Who won?

Redbubble, Inc. prevailed in this case because the court found that it did not engage in the 'use' of Ohio State's trademarks as required for liability under the Lanham Act. The court emphasized that Redbubble merely facilitated sales between independent artists and consumers without taking on the role of a seller, which is crucial for establishing trademark infringement.

Redbubble, Inc. prevailed in this case because the court found that it did not engage in the 'use' of Ohio State's trademarks as required for liability under the Lanham Act.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sorensen v. WD-40 Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 4437527

American Society for Testing and Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 597 F.Supp.3d 213, 2022 Copr.L.Dec. P 31,975

W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Gillette Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1989 WL 206492, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1333

Jysk Bed’N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767, 117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1200, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1877

Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Aeropower Co., Ltd., 34 F.3d 246, 1995 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,343, 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1198