Amazon, Williams-Sonoma Face Off Over Trademark Cases in SF Court
Durie Tangri's Mark Lemley argued that Amazon.com is merely exercising its right to resell Williams-Sonoma merchandise on its website. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte asked if some of Amazon's language might be "gratuitous" enough to cause consumer confusion.
April 03, 2019 at 06:26 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Williams-Sonoma went into San Francisco federal court Tuesday with its claim that Amazon.com has created “a fake Williams-Sonoma website” on its platform, while Amazon argued for the right to resell others' merchandise without having to face ginned-up claims about consumer confusion.
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Annette Hurst for Williams Sonoma and Durie Tangri partner Mark Lemley for Amazon ran into a judge who admitted to being a power user of Amazon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the Northern District of California said it's clear to her personally that when Amazon adds the words “by Williams-Sonoma” to Williams-Sonoma merchandise, that simply means Amazon is acting a reseller, which is legal.
But she said several times during an hour-long hearing that adding words like “Amazon official site” and “by Williams Sonoma” may be just confusing enough for ordinary consumers to defeat Amazon's early-stage motion to dismiss the case.
“Why add that?” Laporte asked Lemley. She said it seems “gratuitous, but I don't think Amazon [does anything] gratuitously, at least not for long.”
Lemley said the “by Williams-Sonoma” tag appears in small text, as a link to a page with other Williams-Sonoma merchandise. If it weren't there, he said, Williams-Sonoma would probably be suing Amazon for offering its products without being forthright about the source.
“Well, depending how this lawsuit turns out, you may or may not be immunized by another lawsuit,” Laporte said with a chuckle.
Williams-Sonoma kicked off the dispute in December by accusing Amazon of trading on Williams-Sonoma's goodwill and infringing its service mark. Williams-Sonoma says it carefully guards its online reputation, and calls Amazon's use “a counterfeit mark.” Amazon moved to dismiss the case in February, saying it had a right under the first-sale doctrine to accurately identify the merchandise it's reselling.
Tuesday's hearing featured two of Silicon Valley's premier IP lawyers. Lemley brought his professorial approach to the argument, except for when he accused Hurst of rigging her complaint so that any appeal would go to the Federal Circuit. Hurst, meanwhile, brought up U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's call to break up Amazon over alleged anti-competitive behavior at one point, which Laporte quickly shut down.
For her own part, Laporte, in what she called the “true confessions” portion of the hearing, described her own impressions as an Amazon user. “They're basically taking over the world. They sell everything. Pretty soon, nobody else will be left,” she said with a laugh. “When my husband first got Prime I thought it was a terrible indulgence. But before long I became addicted.”
She said that “personally, my own instinct” is that Amazon is right about what the language on the site means. “But I do then have to … put that aside, because I'm not the target consumer here reading this,” she added.
Lemley said the allegations would have weight only if Amazon suggested “full, official endorsement” by the Williams-Sonoma. But Amazon isn't doing that, he said, and the Ninth Circuit has discouraged suits based on vague claims of confusion. “If we just said, 'Well, people might be confused,' everything would get to trial, and I think the courts are trying to short-circuit that,” Lemley said.
“Well, I don't know about 'get to trial,' but might get past motion-to-dismiss stage,” Laporte replied.
Hurst said the Ninth Circuit's first-sale caselaw allows only the stocking and reselling of a third party's goods. Use of phrases like “Amazon official site” are “wholly unnecessary to convey the information to the consumer,” she said. “They're advertising the mark, not the good, and they're doing it in a way that suggests endorsement, sponsorship or affiliation.”
If Amazon's conduct is so egregious, Laporte asked Hurst, why haven't other merchandisers complained?
“Some may simply not want to fight,” Hurst said. “You have presidential candidates trying to break them up because they're misusing their status as a platform to acquire data that they then use to compete with retailers.”
“Whatever the other unhappiness may be, I'm just focusing on this one,” Laporte told her. “I'm not getting into those other things.”
Lemley, meanwhile, argued that not only Ninth Circuit but also caselaw at the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit supports his position.
“You had to drag the Federal Circuit in,” Laporte said.
“Unfortunately, counsel has dragged the Federal Circuit into it,” Lemley said. “There's a reason there is one design patent on a single chair” included in the complaint, “and that is to send this case to the Federal Circuit.”
“I've got to object to that,” Hurst interjected. “In fact, there are more design patents coming. But attribution of motivation is improper.”
“I'm ignoring that,” Laporte assured her.
In the end, Laporte complimented Hurst, Lemley and Durie Tangri's Allyson Bennett on their “extremely well presented” argument. “Which of course,” she added, “doesn't make it an easier question for the court.”
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
© 2024 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 AllIs Amazon Liable if Sellers' Products Cause Injury? Courts Weigh 'Sweeping Implications'
4 minute readIt's Alive! Amazon AI Could Provide 'Volition' for Copyright Infringement, Judge Rules
Daily Dicta: Once Partners, Now Adversaries, Quinn Emanuel and Selendy & Gay Face Off in 2 Huge Class Actions
Daily Dicta: Kirkland in a Dog Fight Over the Latest in Pet Comfort
Trending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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