CLA v. CLA: Two California Legal Nonprofits Tussle Over Three-Letter Acronym
California Lawyers for the Arts, an arts group that's been around for decades, claims that the California Lawyers Association acted in bad faith when adopting the CLA acronym after rolling out from the State Bar in 2018. The association, in turn, has argued there's no likelihood of sophisticated lawyers confusing the two.
March 08, 2019 at 05:04 PM
4 minute read
Two California legal nonprofits are in a standoff over the letters C, L and A.
In one corner is the California Lawyers Association, or CLA, a nonprofit spun out of the California State Bar in 2018 that provides MCLE programs and advocacy for the legal profession. The organization filed an application to trademark its logo—a map of the state overlaid with its name and the initials CLA—in March 2018 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In the other is California Lawyers for the Arts, or CLA, a nonprofit group founded in the Bay Area in the mid-1970s to provide legal services to artists and the arts community. The group has used its name and the acronym CLA since joining forces with a similar group in Los Angeles in the 1980s, according to its executive director, Alma Robinson. (For the sake of clarity, The Recorder will refer to the bar-associated group as CL-Association and the arts group as CL-Arts for the remainder of this article.)
CL-Arts claims that the CL-Association has caused confusion with its members and donors and it's not taking the competition for the three letters sitting down. CL-Arts retained pro bono counsel at Morrison & Foerster and filed its own trademark application in November 2018. The Morrison & Foerster lawyers also fired off a cease-and-desist letter to CL-Association's counsel at Irell & Manella on Nov. 26. In the letter, CL-Arts claims that officials at CL-Association knew about the pre-existing CLA name and acronym before filing its CLA trademark application.
“Given this and the renown of the CLA trademark within the California legal community in particular, it is clear that the association is and continues to be aware of CLA's rights therein,” wrote Morrison & Foerster partner Jennifer Lee Taylor. “As a result, your client's use of the CLA trademark constitutes bad faith and a willful attempt to trade on the goodwill associated with CLA.”
The letter said that CL-Association's “blatant usurpation” of CL-Arts' trademark constituted infringement and unfair competition actionable under federal and state law.
In a recent phone interview, CL-Arts executive director Robinson went a step further than the letter. “This is so ironic: That a lawyers' organization would do this,” she said. “This seems like a willful sort of malpractice. … It really seems unethical.”
Jane Shay Wald, CL-Association's lawyer at Irell & Manella, bristled at Robinson's remarks when they were relayed to her by The Recorder. Wald said the idea that her client would have an incentive to confuse its 100,000-plus members about an affiliation with CL-Arts is “preposterous.” She also said that she hasn't identified anyone who was involved in CL-Association's formation and name choice who was aware that CL-Arts marketed itself as CLA.
Although Wald conceded that seeking registration isn't necessarily a precursor to holding a valid trademark right, she pointed out that CL-Arts hadn't sought registration prior to her clients existence—this despite the fact that more than 15 other legal organizations used the CLA acronym nationwide, including Christian Legal Aid of Los Angeles, which provides legal consultations to low-income individuals under the CLA-LA acronym.
“It's inconsistent with saying that everybody knows about us when they themselves didn't take this relatively inexpensive protective step,” Wald said.
Wald said that she had been working with CL-Arts lawyer at Morrison & Foerster in “a fruitful dialogue toward an amicable co-existence” prior to hearing from The Recorder.
“I suppose they feel they can somehow embarrass us into taking steps the law does not require,” Wald said. “Or perhaps they are just looking for some free advertising.”
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 AllWith AI Research Clustered in Hot Spots, Left-Out Regions Could Become Economic 'Deserts'
5 minute readMorgan Lewis Grows ESG Group, Adding Legal VP of Fidelity Foundations
It's 'Google v. Oracle' All Over Again at the 2nd Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
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