Lex Machinapages.lexmachina.com/rs/098-SHZ-498/images/LexMachina 2016 TM...Lex Machina – Trademark...
Transcript of Lex Machinapages.lexmachina.com/rs/098-SHZ-498/images/LexMachina 2016 TM...Lex Machina – Trademark...
Lex Machina Trademark LitigationReport 2016
by Brian C. Howard J.D./M.ALegal Data Scientist & Director of Analytics Services
and Jason Maples J.D./LL.M.Legal Data Expert Published May 2016
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 i
Executive Summary
Lex Machina’s Trademark Litigation Report showcases the power
of Legal Analytics™ to inform business decisions around trademark
litigation.
From precise timing metrics on injunctions that can improve budgeting
for outside counsel and in-house counsel alike, to trends in the top
trademark parties and law fi rms, Legal Analytics provides, data-
driven, customized insights that supplement traditional research and
accumulated experience. In today’s world, leveraging this data gives
companies and fi rms a competitive edge - companies can choose better
counsel based on their performance, and counsel can increase their
performance by understanding how data infl uences decisions from
motion practice to damages demands and settlement thresholds.
Th is report examines several important metrics (and their interactions)
for trademark litigation in aggregate across cases fi led from January 2009
through the end of the fi rst quarter of 2016.
Areas of focus and key insights for the fi rst part include:
Injunctions and Other Remedies
• Th e median time to a temporary restraining order in trademark cases is 6 days. For prelimininary injunctions, the median time to issuance is just over 1 month. For permanent injunctions, the median is 6 months.
• Cybersquatting cases reach preliminary injunction slightly faster than trademark cases generally (0.8 months median vs 1.1 months median), but false advertising cases tend to take longer to reach both preliminary (2 months to 1.1) and permanent injunction (7.2 months to 6) compared to trademark cases generally.
• Chanel, Deckers, Tiff any, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Coach are the most common parties to win relinquishment of a domain name.
Findings and Judgments
• Default judgments happen frequently, often result in fi ndings of a Lanham Act violation, and account for 68.0% of all Lanham Act violation fi ndings.
• Equitable and fair use issues are usually determined on summary judgment more often than not.
Lex Machina’s Trademark Litigation
Report surveys and summarizes the key
trends and insights, and also profi les in
detail a few of the major players.
Based on the same data driving Lex
Machina’s platform, this report exam-
ines timing to remedy, case fi ndings and
resolutions, and damages to showcase
the power of Legal Analytics .
Equitable and fair use issues are usually determined on summjudgment more often than not.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 63ii
Damages
• Damages in trademark litigation come almost entirely from default judgments, and majority of the rest come from consent judgments.
• Of damages resulting from decisions on the merits, juries have awarded more damages than judges.
• Chanel has won the most damages ($1 billion) followed by Burberry Limited ($523 million), and Gucci ($208 million).
• Excluding damages resulting from consent or default judgments, Coach ($66 million) won the most damages followed by PODS Enterprises ($60 million) and Neurovision Medical Products ($60 million).
Districts
• Central District of California (4,164 cases) is the most popular district, although it has seen a decline since 2015 corresponding to an overall decline in all trademark cases filings.
• For cases involving allegations of cybersquatting, the Southern District of Florida leads with 486 cases, followed by the Northern District of Illinois (429 cases), and the Central District of California (361 cases).
• For cases involving allegations of false advertising, The Central District of California tops the chart with 785 cases, followed by the Southern District of New York (389 cases) and the Northern District of Illinois (274 cases).
Parties
• Coach is the leading plaintiff in trademark cases filed from January 2009 through March 2016 with 730 cases, followed by Chanel (330 cases) and Microsoft (203 cases).
• The National Football League (NFL) is the top defendant with 548 cases related to a single dispute over use of former players likeness; the other top defendants are Syngenta Seeds (184 cases), Big Bad Limo Service (109 cases), Amazon.com (66 cases), and Walmart (59 cases).
Law Firms
• Top law firms representing plaintiffs include Goldberg, Perksy & White (542 cases), Stephen M. Gaffigan (539 cases), the Blakely Law Group (371 cases), and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (366 cases).
• On the defense side, Greenberg Traurig is the top firm (with 161 cases), followed by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (146 cases), and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (110 cases).
This report provides a starting point for understanding the impact of Legal Analytics on the business and practice of trademark law. It sheds light on the big trends in trademark litigation. But the full power of Legal Analytics is revealed when users engage with the platform to produce actionable and strategic insights tailored to their particular context and circumstance. When users have the ability to “twist the dials,” their results provide them a competitive advantage in landing clients, winning cases, and closing deals by making data-driven decisions.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 iii
Lex Machina’s Data and MethodologyThis report draws on data from Lex Machina’s proprietary intellectual property litigation database. Although some of our data is derived from litigation information publicly available from PACER (the federal court system’s document website), Lex Machina applies additional layers of intelligence to bring consistency to, and ensure the completeness of, the data. Beyond the automation, key areas of Lex Machina’s data are either human-reviewed or hand-coded by a dedicated team of attorneys to ensure accuracy. Lex Machina’s trademark content covered in this report focuses on U.S. district court cases pending from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2016. Cases are identified as trademark based on the primary filing codes Nature of Suit (NOS) 840 and Cause of Action codes for Trademark Infringement and then verified; additional cases with trademark claims are found from cases filed as NOS 820 and NOS 830. Terminated cases are coded for injunctive relief, merits decisions on the claims brought and defenses raised, and damages awarded for Lanham Act violations. Damages may be compensatory (including defendant’s profits, plaintiff’s actual damages, reasonable royalties, and statutory damages) or non-compensatory (including attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest). Damages enhanced for willfulness are also distinguished. Lex Machina considers a trademark case to be a case with one or more claims involving violations of the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute) including for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition or cybersquatting. This definition excludes cases with only state claims of infringement or unfair competition, trademark ownership disputes, and appeals from TTAB or USPTO decisions. Two primary sub-categories of trademark cases are presented in this report, in addition to analysis of all trademark cases (comprising all charts not specifically labeled with one of the two sub-categories below): • Cybersquatting Cases: Trademark cases involving claims of cyberpiracy prohibited under 15 U.S.C. § 1125
(d) of the the Lanham Act.
• False Advertising Cases: Trademark cases involving claims of false advertising prohibited under 15 U.S.C. §
1125 (a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act.
A trademark finding is defined as a court-enforceable finding regarding one of the claims or defenses listed below. Findings may also include negatives like “No Lanham Act Violation,” when such is found in a granted order (denied orders do not rule one way or the other and are not counted).
• Lanham Act Violation – Activity of trademark / trade dress infringement, trademark / trade dress dilution, unfair competition, or cybersquatting prohibited by the Lanham Act.
• Trademark Ownership / Validity – Proof that the party enforcing the trademark or trade dress owns the right to do so and that the trademark or trade dress is valid.
• Equitable Defense – A defense against a claim of Lanham Act Violation involving license, acquiescence or laches.
• Fair Use Defense – An affirmative defense permitting the limited use of a protected trademark under the Lanham Act, including statutory fair use, nominative use, comparative advertising, and parody.
Lex Machina’s data is focused on the U.S. District Courts and does not include appeals or modifications of judgments on appeal.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 63iv
Table of Contents
Lex Machina’s Data and Methodology iii
Injunction and Remedy Timing
Fig. 1: Timing for permanent and preliminary injunctions granted, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 1
Fig. 2: Timing for temporary restraining orders granted, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 1
Fig. 3: Total number of injunctions and temporary restraining orders, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 1
Fig. 4: Total cases filed for trademark subtypes with granted injunction, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 3
Fig. 5: Time to grant of permanent injunction in cybersquatting cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 3
Fig. 6: Time to grant of permanent injunction in false advertising cases cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 3
Fig. 7: Number of granted of permanent injunction in cybersquatting cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 3
Fig. 8: Time to grant of permanent injunction in false advertising cases cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 3
Fig. 9: Top parties (10 or more cases with grant of relinquishment of domain name), for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 4
Fig. 10: Time to grant of relinquishment of domain name, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 4
Fig. 11: Number of grants of domain name relinquishment, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 4
Findings and Judgments
Fig. 12: Judgment type by finding, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 5
Fig. 13: Finding by judgment event, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 6
Fig. 14: Findings and judgments table, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 7
Fig. 15: Case resolutions, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 7
Damages
Fig. 16: Top parties by damages won, Jan 2009-March 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 8
Fig. 17: Top parties by damages won (omitting consent and default judgments), Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 8
Fig. 18: Damages by judgment type, damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 9
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 v
Fig. 19: Damages and judgment types chart (damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 9
Fig. 20: Top parties winning mass counterfeiter default damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 9
Fig. 21: Mass counterfeiter default damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 (showing amounts with at least 3 cases) 10
Fig. 22: Average mass counterfeiter default damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 10
Districts
Fig. 23: Top districts for all Lanham Act cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 11Fig. 24: Top districts 2011-2016 Q1, all Lanham Act cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 11Fig. 25: Top districts for cybersquatting cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 12Fig. 26: Top districts 2011-2016 Q1, cybersquatting cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 12Fig. 27: Top districts for false advertising cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 13Fig. 28: Top districts 2011-2015 Q1, false advertising cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 13Fig. 29: All trademark cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 14
Parties and Law Firms
Fig. 30: Top plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 15Fig. 31: Top plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016 15Fig. 32: Top defendants, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 17Fig. 33: Top defendants, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016 17Fig. 34: Top law firms representing plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 18Fig. 35: Top law firms representing plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016 18Fig. 36: Top law firms representing defendants, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 19Fig. 37: Top law firms representing defendants, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016 19
Using Boxplots to Understand Timing 21
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 20161
Injunction and Remedy Timing
Fig. 1: Timing for permanent and preliminary injunctions granted, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Note: All charts reflect trademark litigation in the U.S. District Courts unless otherwise stated. The charts in this section only show injunctions and temporary restraining orders granted through March 31, 2016.
Preliminary Injunction Permanent Injunction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Tim
e to
rem
edy (
mon
ths)
0.61.1
2.63.2
6.0
10.8
Fig. 2: Timing for temporary restraining orders granted, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Temporary Restrainin..
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
time
to re
med
y day
s
2.0
7.0
15.0
Fig. 3: Total number of injunctions and temporary restraining orders, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0K 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8KCases
Temporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionPermanent Injunction
1,8096,854
1,281
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 2
Time to Injunction
Understanding the timing of injunctive relief can help practioners form expectations of when the relief will be granted and to budget accordingly.
Nation-wide data on injunctions and remedies from 2009 through the first quarter of 2016 show some interesting trends:
• The median time to a temporary restraining order in trademark cases is 6 days.
• For prelimininary injunctions, the median time to issuance is just over 1 month. For permanent injunctions, the median is 6 months.
• Cybersquatting cases reach preliminary injunction slightly faster than trademark cases generally (0.8 months median, 50% between 0.6 and 1.5 vs 1.1 months median, 50% between 0.6 and 2.6).
• False advertising cases tend to take longer to reach both preliminary and permanent injunction compared to trademark cases generally:
Preliminary injunction: Permanent injunction:False advertising: 2 months median,
50% between 0.8 and 4.8 7.2 months median, 50% between 3.8 and 13
Trademark generally: 1.1 months median, 50% between 0.6 and 2.6
6 months median, 50% between 3.2 and 10.8
• Getting a domain name relinquished takes a median of 4.6 months (50% between 2.4 and 8.0) and the parties most frequently winning include Chanel, Deckers, Tiffany, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Coach.
The data shown in this section and the insights below provide only an example of what is possible with Lex Machina’s timing data, which combines timing data with other criteria to, for example, let in-house counsel choose faster lawyers and outside counsel find the fastest districts. The real power of analytics is the ability to interactively harness the data relevant to your specific context to tailor an answer to your specific question.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 20163
Fig. 4: Total cases filed for trademark subtypes with granted injunction, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Fig. 5: Time to grant of permanent injunction in cybersquatting cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
All Lanham Act Cybersquatting False Advertising0K
5K
Cas
es7,765 cases
1,709 cases 1,508 cases
Preliminary Injunction Permanent Injunction
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Tim
e to
rem
edy (
mon
ths)
0.60.8
1.5
2.5
4.8
8.7
Fig. 6: Time to grant of permanent injunction in false advertising cases cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Preliminary Injunction Permanent Injunction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Tim
e to
rem
edy (
mon
ths)
0.8
2.0
4.8
3.8
7.2
13.0
Fig. 7: Number of granted of permanent injunction in cybersquatting cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Fig. 8: Time to grant of permanent injunction in false advertising cases cases, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Cases
Preliminary InjunctionPermanent Injunction 1,484
700
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400Cases
Preliminary InjunctionPermanent Injunction 1,346
269
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 4
Fig. 9: Top parties (10 or more cases with grant of relinquishment of domain name), for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Relinquish Domain Name
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Tim
e to
rem
edy (
mon
ths)
2.4
4.6
8.0
Fig. 10: Time to grant of relinquishment of domain name, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Cases
Chanel, Inc.Deckers Outdoor Corporation
Tiffany (NJ), LLCLouis Vuitton Malletier, S.A.
Gucci America, Inc.Coach Services, Inc.
Coach, Inc.Oakley, Inc.
River Light V, L.P.Tory Burch LLC
Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.American Automobile Association, Inc.
Michael Kors, L.L.C.Adidas AG
Adidas America, Inc.Adidas International Marketing B.V.
Reebok International Ltd.Montblanc-Simplo GMBH
Sports Licensed Division of the adida..Zynga Game Network, Inc.
123 cases68 cases
44 cases40 cases
26 cases24 cases24 cases24 cases
23 cases23 cases
17 cases16 cases16 cases
13 cases13 cases13 cases12 cases
11 cases11 cases11 cases
Fig. 11: Number of grants of domain name relinquishment, for cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 500 1000 1500Cases
Relinquish Domain Name 1,332
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 20165
Findings and Judgments
Fig. 12: Judgment type by finding, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Consent Judgment
1,057findings
Default Judgment
3,365findings
Judgment on thePleadings
55findings
Summary Judgment
1,207findings
Trial
558findings
JMOL
38findings
5.9%
89.5%
3.8%
98.0%
0.2%1.4%
7.3% 5.5%
41.8%41.8%
6.5%6.5%4.1%
30.5%45.3%
4.6%
9.3%5.7%4.5%
36.4%34.8%
7.5%
10.5%2.6%7.9%
28.9%47.4%
2.6%
Finding TypeOwnership / ValidityNo Ownership / ValidityLanham Act ViolationNo Lanham Act ViolationEquitable DefenseNo Equitable DefenseFair Use DefenseNo Fair Use Defense
Note: percentage labels for small slices may be omitted in this and the next figure.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 6
Ownership /Validity
207findings
No Ownership/ Validity
127findings
Lanham ActViolation
4,848findings
No LanhamAct Violation
869findings
EquitableDefense
83findings
No EquitableDefense
105findings
Fair UseDefense
20findings
No Fair UseDefense
21findings
3.9%
1.9%30.0%
1.0%38.2%
25.1%
2.4% 7.1%
62.2%
25.2%
7.6% 19.5%
68.0%
4.2%
4.6% 5.4%2.6%22.3%
62.9%2.4% 4.8%
59.0%
30.1%
3.6%
3.8%2.9%
52.4%
40.0%
1.0%
5.0%
90.0%
5.0%
57.1%
42.9%
Judgment TypeConsent JudgmentDefault JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsSummary JudgmentTrialJMOL
With Lex Machina, you can drill down on the data shown here for findings, judg-ments, and resolutions (as well as the data in the next section for damages) by any number of other criteria including judges or courts, parties, particular kinds of cases (e.g. cybersquatting or declara-tory judgment), law firms and lawyers, various date ranges, and much more!
Fig. 13: Finding by judgment event, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 20167
Fig. 14: Findings and judgments table, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
ConsentJudgment
DefaultJudgment
Judgmenton the
Pleadings
SummaryJudgment
Trial JMOL
Ownership / ValidityNo Ownership / ValidityLanham Act ViolationNo Lanham Act ViolationEquitable DefenseNo Equitable DefenseFair Use DefenseNo Fair Use Defense
1 cases3 cases
18 cases11 cases
1 cases4 cases
9 cases1 cases
40 cases25 cases
170 cases183 cases
32 cases48 cases
12 cases18 cases55 cases49 cases
510 cases358 cases
78 cases77 cases
4 cases
23 cases15 cases
3 cases2 cases
4 cases47 cases
3,149 cases8 cases8 cases
1 cases3 cases2 cases
38 cases841 cases
3 cases51 cases
Default judgments happen frequently, often result in findings of a Lanham Act violation, and account for 68.0% of all Lanham Act violation findings. Consent judgments are slightly less frequent, but account for another 19.5% of all Lanham Act violation findings. Ownership / Validity is most often resolved on consent judgment (30.0% of those findings), while No Ownership / Validity was most found on summary judgment (62.2% of those findings).
Equitable and fair use issues are usually determined on summary judgment (in each of the four findings shown at bottom on the previous page, summary judgments accounts for 50% or more).
Fig. 15: Case resolutions, in cases terminated Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0K 5K 10K 15K 20K 25KCases
All Lanham Act ClaimDefendant Win
Claimant Win
LikelySettlement
Procedural
Cybersquatting ClaimDefendant Win
Claimant Win
LikelySettlement
Procedural
False Advertising ClaimDefendant Win
Claimant Win
LikelySettlement
Procedural
17,238 cases
8,272 cases
2,496 cases
536 cases
1,715 cases
2,293 cases
293 cases
60 cases
1,631 cases
3,778 cases
121 cases
576 cases
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 8
Damages
Fig. 16: Top parties by damages won, Jan 2009-March 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016
Fig. 17: Top parties by damages won (omitting consent and default judgments), Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016
Damages in trademark litigation come almost entirely from default judgments, and majority of the rest come from consent judgments. Of damages resulting from decisions on the merits, juries have awarded more damages than judges. Chanel has won the most damages ($1 billion) followed by Burberry Limited ($523 million), and Gucci ($208 million).
Excluding damages resulting from consent or default judgments, Coach ($66 million) and PODS Enterprises ($60 million) have won the most damages followed by Neurovision Medical Products ($60 million).
Party
0M 200M 400M 600M 800M 1000M 1200MAmount
Chanel, Inc. 160Burberry Limited 8Burberry Limited UK 4Gucci America, Inc. 26Sprint Communications Company L.P. 37Coach Services, Inc. 160Coach, Inc. 148Nike, Inc. 26Converse, Inc. 1Cartier International, B.V. 5Sprint Solutions, Inc. 28Maurer Rides USA, Inc. 1Maurer Rides, GmbH 1Maurer Sohne 1Zamperla, Inc. 1Zamperla, SpA 1
$999,160,728$523,100,000
$416,600,000$207,670,601
$186,007,862$180,833,339$180,301,339
$170,567,500$166,200,000
$151,326,233$150,416,574
$138,867,795$138,867,795$138,867,795$138,867,795$138,867,795
Cases
Party Cases
0M 10M 20M 30M 40M 50M 60M 70M 80MAmount
Coach, Inc. 24PODS Enterprises, LLC 1Neurovision Medical Products Inc. 1Coach Services, Inc. 21Cartier 1Cartier International, B.V. 1Van Cleef & Arpels, S.A. 1River Light V, L.P. 1Tory Burch LLC 1Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. 3Fendi North America, Inc. 2Fendi S.R.L. 2Fendi Adele S.R.I. 1
$65,816,188$60,700,000$60,000,000
$52,229,188$43,168,500$43,168,500$43,168,500
$38,850,530$38,850,530
$36,600,000$32,383,811$32,383,811
$29,855,043
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 20169
Fig. 18: Damages by judgment type, damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016
Fig. 19: Damages and judgment types chart (damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016
Damages TypeJudgment Type
Consent Judgment Default Judgment Judge Jury TrialStatutoryDamages
StatutoryDamages - Willful
CorrectiveAdvertising
Infringer's Profits
TrademarkOwner's ActualDamagesOther / MixedDamage Types
$53,706,80222 cases
$65,265,39926 cases
$113,055,52931 cases
$41,471,5006 cases
$9,204,0005 cases
$84,784,43145 cases
$33,686,73716 cases
$39,258,15349 cases
$88,8846 cases
$106,520,03537 cases
$22,641,45057 cases
$369,182,388325 cases
$103,591,523132 cases
$300,213,42287 cases
$1,460,26228 cases
$2,700,060,913551 cases
$614,379,250514 cases
$319,352,007223 cases
$12,784,18518 cases
$583,0614 cases
$67,075,21224 cases
$36,273,48333 cases
Judgment Type
Consent Judgment Default Judgment Judge Jury Trial$0B
$1B
$2B
$3B
$4B
$5B
Dam
ages
awa
rded
1,525 cases80.3% of damages
$4,088,887,757
301 cases8.6% of damages
$436,067,948191 cases
5.6% of damages$286,979,690
71 cases5.5% of damages
$282,703,231
Note: The damages charts in this section exclude damages in cases including one or more claims for infringement of a non-design patent.
Fig. 20: Top parties winning mass counterfeiter default damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016Party Name
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Cases with awards of mass counterfeiting default damages
Deckers Outdoor CorporationRiver Light V, L.P.
Tory Burch LLCOakley, Inc.
Coach Services, Inc.Coach, Inc.
Chanel, Inc.Michael Kors, L.L.C.Gucci America, Inc.Luxottica USA LLC
2525
231717
13
70
14
1010
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 10
Fig. 21: Mass counterfeiter default damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016 (showing amounts with at least 3 cases)
Judgment TypeDefault Judgment
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Number of cases (showing award amounts with at least 3 cases)
MassCounterfeiterDefaultDamages
Cybersquatting $10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000$100,000
Other LanhamAct grounds
$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,000$500,000$600,000$1,000,000$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000
50 cases34 cases
16 cases12 cases
11 cases
8 cases5 cases
8 cases3 cases3 cases
186 cases
26 cases11 cases
26 cases
20 cases3 cases
3 cases5 cases
7 cases3 cases
Fig. 22: Average mass counterfeiter default damages awarded Jan 2009 - Mar 2016 in cases filed Jan 2005 - Mar 2016
Judgment TypeDefault Judgment
MassCounterfeiterDefaultDamages
Cybersquatting
Other Lanham Act grounds 292 cases$1,894,679
62 cases$41,939
Lex Machina has introduced Mass Counterfeiter Default Damages as a type of trademark damages to capture scenarios where plaintiffs are awarded statutory damages on default judgment en masse against many defendants accused of counterfeiting. Typically, the defendants are websites, paypal accounts, aliases, or other entities, often with overlapping identity, provided by plaintiffs in a list or schedule, and the damages award are awarded as a rate (e.g. $2,000,000 per defendant, where each defendant is separately liable) instead of as a lump sum (e.g. $10,000,000 against all defendants, where defendants are jointly and severally liable).
Due to the nature of these cases, the total amount of damages is often very high but almost never collected. Moreover, because the actual number of defendants is unknown or unclear from the court record, the total amount of damages awarded in the case cannot be reliably calculated. Consequently, these damages have been isolated in the new damages type, which helps prevent the other totals from becoming artificially inflated.
The damages “rate” per defendant tends to be lower when the award is based on cybersquatting (when compared to other Lanham act grounds).
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 201611
Districts
Fig. 23: Top districts for all Lanham Act cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Cases
C.D.Cal.
S.D.N.Y.
S.D.Fla.
N.D.Ill.
N.D.Cal.
D.Minn.
D.N.J.
M.D.Fla.
E.D.N.Y.
E.D.Mich.
4,164 cases
2,142 cases
1,659 cases
1,478 cases
1,204 cases
1,007 cases
911 cases
846 cases
710 cases
641 cases
Fig. 24: Top districts 2011-2016 Q1, all Lanham Act cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
`09 Q1 `09 Q3 `10 Q1 `10 Q3 `11 Q1 `11 Q3 `12 Q1 `12 Q3 `13 Q1 `13 Q3 `14 Q1 `14 Q3 `15 Q1 `15 Q3 `16 Q1Quarter / Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Cas
es fi
led
94
112
182
143146147
148148
110
138
76
111
150
137
151
74
136
36
152
505052
60
72 71 71
154
77
5858
48
56
155
78
132
4241
5959
47 5555
93
79
40
6060
7373
27
6868
68
157
56
44
57
34 34
53
6767
8181
45 4545
3838 38
38
6262
5871
71
54
66 66
159159
82 82
167
37
66
36
30
515151
160
127
42
60
373731
5264
8888
165
4848
61
32 32
51
49 49
63
123
85
164
125
61
4949
49
34 3440
636262
6767
33
48 48
6262
124
DistrictC.D.Cal.N.D.Cal.N.D.Ill.S.D.Fla.S.D.N.Y.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 12
Fig. 25: Top districts for cybersquatting cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Fig. 26: Top districts 2011-2016 Q1, cybersquatting cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550Cases
S.D.Fla.
N.D.Ill.
C.D.Cal.
S.D.N.Y.
E.D.Va.
N.D.Cal.
M.D.Fla.
E.D.Mich.
D.Nev.
D.Ariz.
486 cases
429 cases
361 cases
235 cases
223 cases
184 cases
149 cases
139 cases
138 cases
114 cases
`09 Q1 `09 Q3 `10 Q1 `10 Q3 `11 Q1 `11 Q3 `12 Q1 `12 Q3 `13 Q1 `13 Q3 `14 Q1 `14 Q3 `15 Q1 `15 Q3 `16 Q1Quarter / Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cas
es fi
led
35
15
33
4
29
1817
19
1616
1616 16
1818 18
2020
16 15
28
1212
99
1313
26
8
19
2
2121
21
15
99
99
9
1414
12 11
88 8
14
25
7 76
66
6
1
20 201919
3
67 7
7
14
1010
13
2626
11
1010
10 10
77 7
15
2424
66 65
55
2 2 2
333
18 1818
77
88
88
1010
1010
1313 111010
9
66
16
55555
4 4 43
4
22
1717 17
89 9 9
24
11
DistrictC.D.Cal.N.D.Cal.N.D.Ill.S.D.Fla.S.D.N.Y.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 201613
Fig. 27: Top districts for false advertising cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
Fig. 28: Top districts 2011-2015 Q1, false advertising cases, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900Cases
C.D.Cal.
S.D.N.Y.
N.D.Ill.
D.N.J.
N.D.Cal.
S.D.Fla.
E.D.Mich.
S.D.Tex.
N.D.Tex.
N.D.Ga.
785 cases
389 cases
274 cases
256 cases
251 cases
233 cases
202 cases
180 cases
167 cases
164 cases
`09 Q1 `09 Q3 `10 Q1 `10 Q3 `11 Q1 `11 Q3 `12 Q1 `12 Q3 `13 Q1 `13 Q3 `14 Q1 `14 Q3 `15 Q1 `15 Q3 `16 Q1Quarter / Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Cas
es fi
led
28
42
272727
2828
28
2626
19
40
29
25
18
39
4
13 1313
1314
242424
99
9
22
1
9 99
17
10 10
88
1212
1212 1212
15
10 1010
1717
37
6
2
8 8
1616
11
1414
3
777
7
32
8888
1616
2222
15
11
20
4
777
10 1010
15
1212
13 13
44 4
66
10
33
77 7 7 7
19
55
35
4
66
11 11 11 11
14
1312
5 5
99
34
6 66 6 6
1818
2020
13
DistrictC.D.Cal.D.N.J.N.D.Cal.N.D.Ill.S.D.N.Y.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 14
The Central District of California (4,164 cases) is the most popular district by cases filed from January 2009 through March of 2016, followed by the Southern District of New York (2,142 cases) and the Southern District of Florida (1,659 cases). However, the number of cases filed in the Central District of California have declined each quarter since the beginning of 2015, roughly tracking the overall decline in filings of all trademark cases (as shown below). On the other hand, the Northern District of Illinois has seen an increase, though less dramatic, each quarter over the same timeframe.
For cases involving allegations of cybersquatting, the Southern District of Florida leads with 486 cases, followed by the Northern District of Illinois (429 cases), and the Central District of California (361 cases). Looking at the historical trend, the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of Illinois overtook the Central District of California around 2011, but have traded the lead between themselves since.
For cases involving allegations of false advertising, The Central District of California tops the chart with 785 cases, followed by the Southern District of New York (389 cases) and the Northern District of Illinois (274 cases).
Fig. 29: All trademark cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
`09 Q1 `09 Q3 `10 Q1 `10 Q3 `11 Q1 `11 Q3 `12 Q1 `12 Q3 `13 Q1 `13 Q3 `14 Q1 `14 Q3 `15 Q1 `15 Q3 `16 Q1Quarter / Year
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Cas
es fi
led
1,412
987977
9981,003
1,0071,012 1,0141,014
795
1,0191,0191,019
949942932932
916914 908
1,061
907
1,1241,069
899849
894868
1,098
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 201615
Parties and Law Firms
Fig. 30: Top plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900Cases
Coach Services, Inc.Coach, Inc.
Chanel, Inc.Microsoft Corporation
American Automobile Association, Inc.Boost Worldwide, Inc.
Deckers Outdoor CorporationSlep-Tone Entertainment Corporation
Luscious Limo Service, Inc.Best Western International, Inc.
Chevron Intellectual Property LLCMoroccanoil, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.Bravado International Group Merchandising Se..
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A.
BR IP Holder LLC
730 cases676 cases
330 cases203 cases
195 cases164 cases164 cases162 cases
109 cases107 cases100 cases98 cases96 cases
81 cases81 cases81 cases80 cases
Fig. 31: Top plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Cases
Sream, Inc.Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC
Chanel, Inc.Luxottica Group S.p.A.
Deckers Outdoor CorporationAmerican Automobile Association, Inc.
Oakley, Inc.Sprint Solutions, Inc.
Sprint Communications Company L.P.Luscious Limo Service, Inc.
Microsoft CorporationCoach Services, Inc.
Coach, Inc.Adidas AG
Adidas America, Inc.Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
BMW of North America, LLCMichael Kors, L.L.C.
Yeti Coolers, LLC
55 cases54 cases
47 cases38 cases
34 cases27 cases27 cases
25 cases23 cases
21 cases21 cases
20 cases20 cases
18 cases18 cases18 cases18 cases18 cases18 cases
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 16
Coach is the leading plaintiff in trademark cases filed from January 2009 through March 2016 with 730 cases, followed by Chanel (330 cases) and Microsoft (203 cases). In the last 5 quarters, both Sream (55 cases - the maker of RooR water pipes) and Phoenix Entertainment Partners (54 cases - a theatrical production and management company that licenses karaoke) have filed more cases than Chanel (47 cases), or Coach (20 cases).
The National Football League (NFL) is the top defendant with 548 cases, although many of those cases are related to a single dispute between the NFL and former players over use of player likeness and were filed together in Q3 2014 in the District of Minnesota. After the NFL, the other top defendants are Syngenta Seeds (184 cases), Big Bad Limo Service (109 cases), Amazon.com (66 cases), and Walmart (59 cases). In the last 5 quarters, Syngenta Seeds is the most frequent defendant (140 cases).
Many of the individuals towards the bottom of the defendant charts may be aliases or pseudonyms - the cases attributed to these names may or may not relate to any single identity. They have been included to show the relative magnitude of litigation against such entities against that of the more recognizable names.
Two of the top defendants, WhoisGuard, and Domains by Proxy, are companies that offer anonymity and spam protection to owners of domain names. When registering a domain for a website, one must provide contact information to be included in the Internet’s publically accessible WHOIS database. These companies provide a proxy address and email that customers can list in the WHOIS database. However, counsel attempting to determine the ownership of an infringing website often name them as a party when they appear in the WHOIS data for the website.
Top law firms representing plaintiffs include Goldberg, Perksy & White (542 cases), Stephen M. Gaffigan (539 cases), the Blakely Law Group (371 cases), and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (366 cases). In the last 5 quarters, Stephen M. Gaffigan leads with 115 cases, followed by Greer, Burns & Crain (86 cases).
On the defense side, Greenberg Traurig is the top firm (with 161 cases), followed by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (146 cases), and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (110 cases). In the last 5 quarters, Greenberg Traurig remains the leader (25 cases) with Gorden & Rees (24 cases) close behind.
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 201617
Fig. 32: Top defendants, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Cases
National Football LeagueNFL Productions, L.L.C.
NFL Films, Inc.Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLCSyngenta Corporation
Big Bad Limo Service, Inc.Louis DeDriver
Syngenta AGAmazon.com, Inc.
Syngenta Crop Protection AGWal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Google Inc.Target Corporation
Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.Domains by Proxy, LLC
Ludwig RhysWen Ben ZhouDan Thurston
Nike, Inc.Amy Bloom
Whoisguard, Inc.Yinsi Baohu Yi Kaiqi
548 cases545 cases544 cases
184 cases173 cases171 cases
109 cases109 cases
76 cases66 cases62 cases59 cases
46 cases43 cases
31 cases30 cases30 cases29 cases24 cases22 cases21 cases21 cases21 cases
Fig. 33: Top defendants, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Cases
Syngenta Seeds, Inc.Syngenta Corporation
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLCSyngenta AG
Syngenta Crop Protection AGSyngenta Biotechnology, Inc.
Ludwig RhysWen Ben ZhouDan Thurston
Big Bad Limo Service, Inc.Louis DeDriver
Amy BloomLirong Shi
Yinsi Baohu Yi KaiqiHao LiLi Lin
OrganizationSan Zhang
Xiao WuXinqian Tyndall
Whoisguard, Inc.Xinqian Rhys
140 cases132 cases132 cases
66 cases56 cases
31 cases27 cases
25 cases24 cases
21 cases21 cases
19 cases19 cases19 cases
17 cases17 cases17 cases16 cases16 cases16 cases15 cases15 cases
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 18
Fig. 34: Top law firms representing plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Cases
Goldberg, Persky & WhiteStephen M. Gaffigan
Blakely Law GroupKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Johnson & PhamGreenberg Traurig
Greer, Burns & CrainPerkins Coie
Bryan CaveJ Andrew Coombs Law Offices
Carlton Fields Jorden BurtFish & Richardson
Locke Lord EdwardsGordon & ReesHolland & Hart
542 cases539 cases
371 cases366 cases
336 cases320 cases
296 cases287 cases
262 cases197 cases196 cases
174 cases172 cases
158 cases151 cases
Fig. 35: Top law firms representing plaintiffs, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Cases
Stephen M. GaffiganGreer, Burns & Crain
Blakely Law GroupCarlton Fields Jorden Burt
Johnson & PhamKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Greenberg TraurigNexio
Perkins CoieLewis & Roca
Davis Wright TremaineLeClairRyan
VenableRobert L. Greener, Law Office
Watts Guerra Craft
115 cases86 cases
48 cases41 cases40 cases40 cases
30 cases29 cases29 cases
24 cases23 cases23 cases23 cases22 cases22 cases
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 201619
Fig. 36: Top law firms representing defendants, by cases filed Jan 2009 - Mar 2016
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Cases
Greenberg TraurigKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & SmithWentovich Law Offices
Fox RothschildGordon & Rees
Sheppard Mullin Richter & HamptonTingley Law Group
Faegre Baker DanielsDLA Piper
Alston & BirdLocke Lord Edwards
Foley & LardnerHolland & Knight
Davis Wright TremainePerkins Coie
161 cases146 cases
110 cases107 cases106 cases
97 cases89 cases
87 cases86 cases85 cases84 cases
82 cases77 cases77 cases
75 cases73 cases
Fig. 37: Top law firms representing defendants, by cases filed Jan 2015 - Mar 2016
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Cases
Greenberg TraurigGordon & Rees
DLA PiperLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
Wentovich Law OfficesDavis Wright Tremaine
Fox RothschildKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Troutman SandersAkerman Senterfitt
Sheppard Mullin Richter & HamptonTingley Law Group
Broad & CasselKirkland & Ellis
Morgan Lewis & BockiusO'Melveny & Myers
Perkins CoieWinston & Strawn
25 cases24 cases
20 cases20 cases
19 cases18 cases
17 cases17 cases
13 cases12 cases12 cases12 cases
11 cases11 cases11 cases11 cases11 cases11 cases
Lex Machina – Trademark Litigation Report 2016 20
Using Boxplots to Understand Timing
Lex Machina’s analytics use a data visualization known as the boxplot to convey information about the timing of significant events in a case. Knowing how to interpret this data gives you an advantage when it comes to strategy, budgeting, and setting expectations, as well as in other decisions that involve case timing.
Consider a newly filed case: Regardless of whether you’re an outside counsel, say, trying to determine how large of a flat fee to charge or trying to make sure two trials don’t overlap, or an inside counsel estimating legal spend and evaluating a firm’s proposed budget, case timing matters. Knowing the lower and upper bounds of how long it may reasonably take the case to reach injunction can give both kinds of counsel a strategic advantage over opponents lacking such nuanced information. Moreover, knowing the best and worst case scenarios for timing, or exactly how likely it is that a case will be active in 6 months enables more far-sighted contingency planning.
A boxplot summarizes a series of data points to help you understand the shape, or distribution of the values in those points. The boxplot is drawn based on five numbers: the median, the upper and lower quartiles, and the whiskers for a distribution.
Paying attention to these key parts of the plot will help you quickly understand what you need to know. Although boxplots provide a wealth of information, the four observations below, in order from simplest onwards, are all one needs to easily grasp the significance of a boxplot.
Median: the middle dividing line of the box splits the data points evenly so that 50% fall to either side. It’s a form of average that gives a single number representation of what to reasonably expect.
Box bounds: the box encloses the middle-most 50% of the datapoints (from the 25th percentile to the 75th), with 25% of the datapoints falling outside to either side. This makes the box a good representation of the range one can reasonably expect.
Box compressed or elongated: a more compressed box means that more datapoints fall into a smaller range of time and therefore are more consistent; in contrast a longer box means that the datapoints are spread out over a wider time period and are therefore less predictable.
Whiskers: Whiskers are drawn to show the outside bounds of reasonable expectation, beyond which datapoints are considered outliers.1
1 By statistical convention, boxplots define outliers as points beyond more than 1.5 times the width of the box (sometimes called the “interquartile range”).
Lex Machina1010 Doyle Street, Suite 200Menlo Park, CA 94025Phone: (650) 390-9500www.lexmachina.com© 2016 Lex Machina