Scorpiniti v. Fox Television Studios, Inc.

918 F.Supp.2d 866

Louis J. SCORPINITI, Plaintiff,

v.FOX TELEVISION STUDIOS, INC., Defendant.

No. 11–CV–64–LRR.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Cedar Rapids Division.

Jan. 23, 2013.

Timothy J. Zarley, Zarley Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Christine Lebron–Dykeman, Jeffrey D. Harty, Jonathan Lee Kennedy, Bradley J. Powers, McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I.    ¦INTRODUCTION                                                 ¦869    ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II.   ¦PROCEDURAL HISTORY                                           ¦869    ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.  ¦SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION                                  ¦869    ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦IV.   ¦SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD                                    ¦869    ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦V.    ¦RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND                                  ¦870    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Parties                                                   ¦870    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Scorpiniti's THE GATE Mark                                ¦870    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦FTVS's THE GATES Mark                                     ¦871    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦D.  ¦Alleged Infringement                                      ¦871    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VI.  ¦ANALYSIS                                                      ¦873    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Infringement Claim                                        ¦873    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Protectible interest                                  ¦873   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.  ¦Use in commerce                                          ¦874  ¦
+---+---+--+----+---------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.  ¦Use in connection with television broadcasting services  ¦876  ¦
+---+---+--+----+---------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.  ¦Summary                                                  ¦877  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Likelihood of confusion                               ¦878   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Strength of Scorpiniti's mark                    ¦879   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦I.    ¦Conceptual strength                        ¦879    ¦
+-----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦     ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Commercial strength                        ¦881    ¦
+-----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦     ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦Summary                                    ¦882    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Similarity                                       ¦882   ¦
+----+----+---+----+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Competitive proximity                            ¦883   ¦
+----+----+---+----+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦Intent                                           ¦884   ¦
+----+----+---+----+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦e.  ¦Degree of care                                   ¦885   ¦
+----+----+---+----+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦f.  ¦Actual confusion                                 ¦886   ¦
+----+----+---+----+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦g.  ¦Summary                                          ¦887   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦First Amendment                                       ¦887   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦Damages                                               ¦888   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Remaining Claims                                          ¦888    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VII.  ¦CONCLUSION                                                   ¦888    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Defendant Fox Television Studios, Inc.'s (“FTVS”) “Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Motion”) (docket no. 55).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 21, 2011, Plaintiff Louis J. Scorpiniti filed an Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) (docket no. 15) against FTVS. Count I alleges trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114.¹ Count II alleges false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Count III alleges unfair competition under Iowa law.

On September 26, 2012, FTVS filed an Answer (docket no. 47), denying Scorpiniti's allegations, asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims against Scorpiniti. Counterclaim I requests that the court cancel Scorpiniti's trademark for nonuse. Counterclaim II requests that the court cancel Scorpiniti's trademark due to fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

On November 14, 2012, FTVS filed the Motion. On December 12, 2012, Scorpiniti filed a Resistance (docket no. 66). On December 21, 2012, FTVS filed a Reply (docket no. 69). In the Motion, FTVS requests the opportunity to present oral argument. The court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Scorpiniti's first two claims because they arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125. See28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Scorpiniti's third claim because “the federal-law claims and state-law claim [ ] in the case derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that [a plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Kan. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir.1996) (second alteration in original) (quoting Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”).

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is...