Kate Spade wins trademark infringement case against Surf for Saturday brand
Kate Spade has started out 2014 with some good news. After recently filing a lawsuit declaring that its new, SATURDAY brand, did not infringe on the name of any of the popular mens clothing company, SATURDAY SURF LLC, the district court officially ruled in the womens retail apparel companys favor.
January 06, 2014 at 04:37 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Kate Spade has started out 2014 with some good news. After recently filing a lawsuit declaring that its new, SATURDAY brand, did not infringe on the name of any of the popular men's clothing company, SATURDAY SURF LLC, the district court officially ruled in the women's retail apparel company's favor.
Shortly after filing the suit, Surf LLC filed a counterclaim alleging trademark infringement and reverse confusion against Kate Spade's use of the word Saturday in its new brand. Surf's biggest concern was that the use of the term Saturday would confuse consumers by leading them to believe that Surf's products were licensed by or affiliated with Kate Spade, or that Surf was the one infringing on Kate Spade's SATURDAY mark.
According to the civil case available on Finnegan.com, the district court analyzed both Surf's trademark infringement and Kate Spade's declaratory judgment action, addressing the protect-ability of Surf's alleged SATURDAY marks (SATURDAYS SURF NYC, SATURDAYS, and SATURDAYS SURF). The court held that SATURDAYS SURF NYC was indeed a valid mark based on its federal registration, but noted that the scope of protection it and Surf's other asserted marks are entitled to would depend on the strength of the mark SATURDAYS standing alone.
The court ruled that Saturday being a day of the week does not necessarily make it ineligible for trademark protection. The term Saturday refers to a lifestyle exuding the carefree attitude a consumer feels on the weekend, which can be applicable to any brand or product. The usage of the word Saturday in the apparel and accessories industry is common; therefore, Surf should not be permitted to monopolize Saturday as a trademark.
The court also held that Surf did not present sufficient evidence showing use of SATURDAYS as a trademark. According to the ruling, the court found that Kate Space had adopted the SATURDAY mark in good faith, citing Kate Spade's lack of knowledge about Surf and its consultation with counsel before and after learning of Surf and its SATURDAY-formative marks.
Overall, due to the word Saturday being such a common term, Kate Spade LLC won the claim due to the court determining that the word could be entitled to a very narrow scope of usage with little room for consumer confusion. The court ruled in Kate Spade's favor on the infringement counterclaims and found its request for declaratory judgment to be unnecessary since it is unlikely that a consumer would confuse a company specializing in men's products with a women's apparel brand as well known as Kate Space.
For more news on patent infringement claims, check out these related articles:
Pennsylvania's AG joins fight against patent trolls
GCs and AGs join hands to tackle patent litigation
InterDigital loses more than patent case against Nokia, Huawei, ZTE
Kate Spade has started out 2014 with some good news. After recently filing a lawsuit declaring that its new, SATURDAY brand, did not infringe on the name of any of the popular men's clothing company, SATURDAY SURF LLC, the district court officially ruled in the women's retail apparel company's favor.
Shortly after filing the suit, Surf LLC filed a counterclaim alleging trademark infringement and reverse confusion against Kate Spade's use of the word Saturday in its new brand. Surf's biggest concern was that the use of the term Saturday would confuse consumers by leading them to believe that Surf's products were licensed by or affiliated with Kate Spade, or that Surf was the one infringing on Kate Spade's SATURDAY mark.
According to the civil case available on Finnegan.com, the district court analyzed both Surf's trademark infringement and Kate Spade's declaratory judgment action, addressing the protect-ability of Surf's alleged SATURDAY marks (SATURDAYS SURF NYC, SATURDAYS, and SATURDAYS SURF). The court held that SATURDAYS SURF NYC was indeed a valid mark based on its federal registration, but noted that the scope of protection it and Surf's other asserted marks are entitled to would depend on the strength of the mark SATURDAYS standing alone.
The court ruled that Saturday being a day of the week does not necessarily make it ineligible for trademark protection. The term Saturday refers to a lifestyle exuding the carefree attitude a consumer feels on the weekend, which can be applicable to any brand or product. The usage of the word Saturday in the apparel and accessories industry is common; therefore, Surf should not be permitted to monopolize Saturday as a trademark.
The court also held that Surf did not present sufficient evidence showing use of SATURDAYS as a trademark. According to the ruling, the court found that Kate Space had adopted the SATURDAY mark in good faith, citing Kate Spade's lack of knowledge about Surf and its consultation with counsel before and after learning of Surf and its SATURDAY-formative marks.
Overall, due to the word Saturday being such a common term, Kate Spade LLC won the claim due to the court determining that the word could be entitled to a very narrow scope of usage with little room for consumer confusion. The court ruled in Kate Spade's favor on the infringement counterclaims and found its request for declaratory judgment to be unnecessary since it is unlikely that a consumer would confuse a company specializing in men's products with a women's apparel brand as well known as Kate Space.
For more news on patent infringement claims, check out these related articles:
Pennsylvania's AG joins fight against patent trolls
GCs and AGs join hands to tackle patent litigation
InterDigital loses more than patent case against Nokia, Huawei, ZTE
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAd Agency Legal Chief Scores $12M Golden Parachute in $13B Sale to Rival
3 minute readFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250