Free Memorandum - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS NEAL, RIVERS, ET AL. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS HGI, ET AL. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. LANHAM ACT CLAIMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. PLAINTIFFS' UNREGISTERED MARKS ARE PROTECTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. UNAUTHORIZED USE BY THE DEFENDANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. IN COMMERCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 FACTOR 1) Strength of Plaintiffs' Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

11 FACTOR 2) Relatedness of Goods to Plaintiffs' Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 III. 22 1. THE CONTRACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 23 24 25 26 2. HGI SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING CONTRACTS AS A DEFENSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. HGI DID NOT BUY THE CONTRACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ESTOPPEL/LACHES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. FACTOR 3) Similarity of Plaintiffs' Marks and Marks Used by FUBU/HGI. . . . . . . . . . . . .8 FACTOR 4) Evidence of Actual Confusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 FACTOR 5) Marketing Channels Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FACTOR 6) Type of Goods and Degree of Care Exercised by Purchaser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FACTOR 7) HGI/FUBU'S Intent in Selecting Plaintiffs' Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 FACTOR 8) Likelihood of Expansion of Product Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. DISGORGEMENT OF PROFITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 COMMON LAW RIGHT OF PUBLICITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 278-2 Filed http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial version 11/30/2005 Page 1 of 2 Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version

1 2 3 4 5

B. C. D. E.

HGI'S PREDECESSOR/ASSIGNOR DID NOT OWN OR ASSIGN THE CONTRACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 HGI HAS UNCLEAN HANDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT SUPERCEDED THE CONTRACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 HGI ABANDONED THE MARKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT AN ENFORCEABLE LICENSING AGREEMENT AND ARE UNCONSCIONABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 THERE IS A FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 THE COURT MAY CONSIDER PLAINTIFFS' EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6 F. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. VI. IV. G. H.

3. LACHES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 FALSE LIGHT-INVASION OF PRIVACY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 A. HGI AND FUBU ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS FOR FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ALL HGI DEFENDANTS ARE PROPER PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 UNJUST ENRICHMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 278-2 Filed http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial version 11/30/2005 Page 2 of 2

-ii-