Suggestions
Marc Misthal
Intellectual Property Attorney at Offit Kurman P.A.
Marc Misthal is a Principal at Offit Kurman, P.A., where he specializes in intellectual property law. He is part of the firm's Intellectual Property Practice Group and provides legal counsel to a diverse range of clients globally. His expertise encompasses various aspects of intellectual property, including trademarks and patents.3
Misthal holds a law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which is part of Yeshiva University.1 He is active on LinkedIn, where he shares insights and updates related to intellectual property law and recent legal decisions.245
Highlights
Introducing parties who may apply others’ marks to goods without authorization is not use of a trademark necessary for a finding of trademark infringement.
Printify is an online service which provides customers with tools to operate online businesses, namely the ability to upload images which third parties can print on goods and the ability to publish products for sale on third party sales channels. Printify employees are not involved in the design process, and Printify does not supply any images.
After a customer uploads their design, Printify supplies a title and product description based on the type of product, not the design.
Printify doesn't control customers’ storefronts, and can't remove items from a customer’s storefront.
Printify routes orders to third parties who uses their own machines to print the product. The product does not bear Printify’s name or logo, and Printify does not quality check the products.
KAWS owns several trademark and copyright registrations. In October 2023, KAWS’ counsel sent 73 notice letters to storefronts selling allegedly infringing goods and which KAWS believe were associated with Printify. Printify did not receive the notice letters and was not otherwise contacted by KAWS or its counsel.
On October 24, 2024, KAWS sued Printify, asserting claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting; trademark dilution; false designation of origin; copyright infringement; and common law unfair competition. Additionally, KAWS sought an ex parte temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The TRO was granted, and a hearing on the preliminary injunction was held in late 2023 and early 2024.
After learning of the lawsuit, Printify took steps to remove the infringing material from its website and to prevent customers from fulfilling orders through its system.
In considering the request for a preliminary injunction, the court noted that the central question was whether Printify had used KAWS trademark. The court concluded that it had not, noting that “courts have drawn a line between passive marketplaces, like eBay and Amazon, and direct sellers of their own wares to consumers, like brick-and-mortar retailers.” Further, the court pointed out that a similar case against Printify, brought by Atari, had arrived at a similar conclusion after considering the manner in which Printify operates.
The court also found KAWS’ contributory infringement claim to be without merit, explaining that KAWS had not come forward with evidence showing that Printify had actual or constructive knowledge that customers were infringing on KAWS’ trademarks; general knowledge that a service could be used for infringing purposes was not enough.
The lack of use was also fatal to KAWS’ other claims on the preliminary injunction motion.
#IntellectualProperty #IP #trademarks #trademarkinfringement #BusinessLaw #LegalInsights #OffitKurman
It’s Friday, so let’s talk about videogames and tattoos.
James Hayden is a tattoo artist who has inked two tattoos on LeBron James. Hayden obtained copyright registrations for the two tattoos. James was featured in the NBA 2K videogame, which simulates basketball games and features a realistic depiction of James, including the two tattoos by Hayden.
Hayden sued 2K Games and Take-Two Interactive, who developed and marketed NBA 2K, for copyright infringement. After a trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants, on the ground that they had an implied license to depict the tattoos. Hayden thereafter moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial.
The court found that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s decision. While Hayden argued that he was unaware of the NBA 2K games when he inked tattoos on James and thus could not have granted an implied license for video game use. The court, though, pointed out that NBA players gave the NBA and the NBA Players Association the right to license their likenesses, and that the NBA and the Players Association had granted defendants a license. Further, there was evidence that James had appeared in the NBA 2K game with his tattoos for years before he ever walked into Hayden’s tattoo parlor, that NBA 2K was widely disseminated, and that Hayden had given tattoos to other NBA players appearing in NBA 2K. Indeed, Hayden testified that he had never discussed the need for a license with James, and James testified that Hayden never communicated that a license was needed.
Hayden also sought a new trial on the ground that the court excluded certain evidence, but the court ruled that even if it had permitted the inclusion of that evidence, the jury would not have reach a different result.
The important lesson here is that an implied license is just that—implied or inferred from the parties’ conduct or course of dealing. Thus, it is possible for an implied license to be granted even where someone was not aware that they were doing so.
#IntellectualProperty #IP #copyright #copyrightinfringement #videogames #tattoos #BusinessLaw #LegalInsights #OffitKurman
