Number of IP Lawsuits in Maryland Increases in 2011

           Patent litigation activity in Maryland increased in 2011 compared to the previous four years, as the chart at right shows. According to records available from Justia.com and PACER, plaintiffs filed 35 patent lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt and Baltimore divisions combined) last year, compared to just 22 lawsuits in 2010 and 31 in 2009 (59-percent and 13-percent differences, respectively).

           Plaintiffs filed 38 copyright lawsuits in the Maryland federal court in 2011, compared to 27 lawsuits in 2010 (a 41-percent difference) and 27 lawsuits in 2009 (a 12-percent difference).

          Bucking the upward trend, trademark plaintiffs brought 34 lawsuits in 2011 compared to 40 in 2010 (a 15-percent slide), but matched the number of lawsuits in 2009.

          All combined, plaintiffs brought 107 copyright, patent, and trademark lawsuits in Maryland's federal district court in 2011, a 20-percent increase over 2010, reversing a 10-percent drop in filings from 2009 to 2010 (note, these figures and those shown in the charts do not include cases with multiple plaintiffs or cases having multiple nominal counterclaim plaintiffs).

          Maryland's neighboring federal district courts saw significantly more IP litigation last year: Delaware, 499 combined cases (compared to 272 in 2010); Virginia, 204 cases (compared to 176 in 2010); Pennsylvania, 265 cases (compared to 255 in 2010).

 

Number of Maryland IP Lawsuits Drops in 2010

     Plaintiffs filed 27 copyright lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt and Baltimore divisions combined) in 2010, according to records available from Justia.com and PACER.  That level compares to 34 lawsuits in 2009 (a 21-percent difference) and 40 suits in 2008 (a 33-percent slide).

     Patent litigation activity also declined in 2010 compared to previous years.  Twenty-two patent lawsuits were filed last year, compared to 31 lawsuits in both 2009 and 2008, respectively (a 29-percent downward difference).

     Bucking the trend, trademark plaintiffs brought more lawsuits in 2010 compared to earlier years.  In 2010, 40 trademark lawsuits were filed, compared to just 34 in 2009 (an 18-percent difference) and 36 in 2008 (11-percent).

     All combined, plaintiffs brought 89 copyright, patent, and trademark lawsuits in Maryland in 2010, a 10-percent drop compared to 2009, and a 17-percent decrease in 2008 levels. 

     Maryland's neighboring districts saw a lot more IP litigation last year: Delaware: 272 combined cases; Virginia: 176 total; Pennsylvania: 255.

 

 

 

The HON Trademark Controversy Heats Up Baltimore

          On a Chamber of Commerce road sign along a busy Baltimore corridor, someone has appended the word “Hon” to the end of “Welcome to Baltimore.” Ask most people who have lived there for a period of time and they’ll says that Hon (pronounced “hun”) is part of the charm of Charm City, as much as blue crabs and Orioles baseball. But Hon is now also at the center of a growing intellectual property controversy.

          Around Baltimore, Hon is generally used in place of “sir” or “ma’am” or when one doesn’t know another’s given name, though it can also be used as a short version of “honey” and in other contexts. The term might be part of a greeting: “How are you, hon?”  Or used politely at a diner: “Would you please hand me that salt, hon?” It is often associated with blue-haired, hard working-class women from an earlier generation with sixties-era glasses and big hair, a character right out of John Water’s Hairspray. Hon is as entrenched in the region’s vernacular as “y’all” is to those in the south, “bra” is to locals in Hawaii, and “fogetaboutit” is to New Yorkers. Hon is so closely tied to Baltimore’s roots that its use immediately informs the recipient of the speaker’s geographical residence.

          It should come as no surprise, then, even to Baltimoreans, that the term Hon would be used by local businesses to sell their goods and services. What better way to connect with local customers? Denise Whiting, the owner of Café Hon and the founder of the annual Honfest, would certainly agree. Her Café Hon restaurant has been operating in Hampden, a northwest Baltimore neighborhood, for more than a decade; she registered the business name as a U.S. trademark in 1992. Ms. Whiting’s business also owns separate HON trademarks related to restaurant services, for paper goods (bumper stickers, napkins, and the like), and in connection with retail gift shops. Her HONFEST trademark, first used in 1997, is associated with “conducting entertainment exhibitions in the nature of community cultural festivals.” 

          But no one, it seems, knew about her trademarks, at least not until recently when the Baltimore Sun and others reported that Whiting’s trademark lawyers had successfully enforced her trademarks against a local merchant at the BWI Airport, shutting down the merchant’s retail sales of Hon-related products. The lawyers also interceded when Baltimore City wanted to use Hon-related images as part of an advertising campaign. In December 2010, a small group of vocal protesters gathered in front of Café Hon to voice their opposition to the HON trademarks. More recently, Bruce Goldfarb, a Catonsville, Maryland, writer, publicly challenged the trademarks by selling “Hon” mugs on his “Welcome to Baltimore, Hon” website, openly inviting Whiting to sue him so he could challenge the legality of the trademarks in court. Goldfarb and other opponents want Hon back in the public domain. 

          But that may be impossible in the case of Whiting’s marks, which she claims are incontestable.  And it may take more than protests and unpredictable lawsuits to return HON to the public domain, because any decision by a court in Goldfarb’s favor would only directly affect Whiting’s marks, and may not bar the next person from trademarking Hon in connection with, say, the sale of bicycles or t-shirts on Ocean City’s boardwalk. Baltimoreans seeking a more permanent remedy should look West, to Montana.

          Residents of the Big Sky state had a similar problem in 2001. Back then, a Nevada company called Last Best Beef sought to register Montana’s state slogan: THE LAST BEST PLACE, in connection with the company’s sale of meat, beef, clothing, accessories, even travel-related information. The vitriolic public response caught the eye of then Senator Conrad Burns and later Senator Max Baucus, who has inserted language in various federal appropriations bills to prohibit the use of federal funds to “register, issue, transfer, or enforce any trademark of the phrase THE LAST BEST PLACE.” His 2006 measure was challenged by Last Best Beef in court, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld Baucus’ spending ban in 2007. As Sen. Baucus said on his official website, “Trying to trademark ‘The Last Best Place’ is as ludicrous as someone trying to patent a Montana sunset. If I have to insert this [appropriation] provision for the next 20 years, I will because that is how important this saying is to our state.” According to Trademark Office records, Last Best Beef’s trademarks and trademark applications are indefinitely suspended as a result of the Baucus spending ban. 

          So Maryland’s contingent in Congress could for do for HON what Sen. Baucus has done for THE LAST BEST PLACE.  And they might very well succeed, though for such legislation to pass muster it may need to be limited to just preventing, prospectively, any new marks from using the term HON.  Even if legislation could be enacted that affects Whiting’s marks, would such a measure be fair?  After all, her trademark applications were laid open by the Trademark Office for public opposition many years ago and before the marks were officially registered, and no one then successfully blocked them. Time, it seems, has only made them stronger.  Will the marks survive today’s challenges?  As those in Baltimore might say, we’ll just have to wait and see, Hon.

 

Bouchat Sues Ravens, NFL Over "Flying B" Design

Summary: The twelfth lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in 2008 involves a familiar name to some in Baltimore: Frederick Bouchat.   

     The Baltimore Ravens changed their logo in 1999 to the raven bird with a "B," but before that, they used a "B" on a shield with wings and the word "Ravens," which the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found infringed a design copyrighted by Frederick Bouchat in 1996 (see below). Bouchat, a Baltimore security guard in December 1995 when he drew his original "Flying B" design and sent it to the Baltimore Ravens, sued the Ravens and the National Football League Properties (NFLP) over their use and licensing of the "Shield B" logo, and won. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court decision (see related post here). 

   On February 14, 2008, Bouchat sued the Ravens again, as well as the National Football League (NFL), NFL Films, Inc., and The Baltimore Sun Company, alleging that defendants have and continue to sell, distribute, and publicly display the old "Shield B" logo in connection with, for example, season highlight films, promotional films shown at Ravens games, team game films, memorabilia, photographs, and, in the case of the Baltimore Sun, websites. Bouchat is seeking destruction of infringing materials, an injunction, and unspecified damages.

     Bouchat is represented by Daniel Doty of Schulman & Kaufman LLC, a Baltimore law firm.

Fourth Circuit Affirms Copyright Infringement Case Against NFL Licensees

Summary:  Seeking only minimal recognition for his Baltimore Ravens logo design, Baltimore amateur artist ends up seeking certiori from the Supreme Court in his copyright infringement case, winds up with no damages award


 

 

 

 

 

    

    

     So how much is an NFL franchise team logo worth? Just ask Frederick Bouchat, who sued the Baltimore Ravens and the National Football League Properties (NFLP) over their use and licensing of a logo that closely resembled a drawing Bouchat faxed the Ravens back in 1995. All Bouchat asked in return was a letter of recognition and an autographed helmet, a small reward from a team and League making millions in revenues at the time.

     After a lengthy bifurcated copyright infringement trial, the District Court for the District of Maryland found that the Ravens had infringed Bouchat's copyrighted work. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court decision. His damage award, however, was zero (and he's still waiting for his recognition letter and autographed helmet). Bouchat then sued the NFL's licensees, and won again. However, he was not so lucky when it came to seeking damages.

     Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1), a copyright owner may seek actual damages plus any additional profits of the infringer. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), an award of statutory damages may be made "in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000."

     In this case, Bouchat had little actual damages (he was not making any products using the logo himself), so he sought profits from the Ravens and dozens of NFLP licensees who were selling myriad items containing the "Flying B" logo. The jury found that defendants' income from products containing the Flying B were attributed completely to factors other than the artwork itself, and therefore did not award Bouchat any damages. Moreover, Bouchat was not entitled to an award of statutory damages because he had not registered his copyrighted work before the Ravens' and licensees' infringing conduct began:

"Once NFLP designed and licensed the Flying B logo that infringed Bouchat's copyright, the liability of all of NFLP's licensees became a foregone conclusion.  Thus, we hold that a copyright owner may not obtain statutory damages from a licensee liable jointly and severally with a licensor when the licensor's first infringing act occurred before registration and was part of the same line of related infringements that included the licensee's offending act." 

Comments:

  • Something tells me that the recognition letter and helmet Bouchat requested were viewed by Ravens' lawyers as evidence or an admission of sorts that the Ravens were infringing. Would that "payment" have been later viewed as forming an implied license to use the logo?  Would Bouchat have sued anyway after receiving the thank you letter? No one can tell for sure, but it shows how damages-wary lawyers think about actions their clients make, even the smallest of gestures

  • The Copyright Act provides that no award of statutory damages shall be made for any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective data of its registration. Lesson learned: even if you're an amateur artist, don't forget to register your work with the Copyright Office (electronic registration costs are minimal) in order to seek statutory damages; you just never know when and where your work will wind up being used

  • NFLP's use of the logo generated over $2.6 million in gross revenues from June 1996 through March 31, 1999 (after that date, the logo was no longer used)

  • Cites: Bouchart v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 228 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038 (2001) (Bouchart I); Bouchat v. K-Mart Corporation, No. 01 Civ.1996-1-MJG (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2007)

  • Howard Schulman, of Shulman & Kaufman, LLC, Baltimore, MD, argued for Appellant Bouchart.  Defendants-Appellees were represented by White & Case and Hogan & Hartson LLP of Baltimore, MD