S10 Entertainment and Media LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

CASE NAME: S10 Entertainment and Media LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

TYPE OF CASE: Trademark infringement

COURT: U.S. Central District

JUDGE(S): U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder

DEFENSE LAWYERS: Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP, David J.F. Gross, Chad Drown, Christopher J. Burrell, Lauren W. Linderman, Katlyn M. Moseley

PLAINTIFF LAWYERS: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC, Andrew D. Skale, James J. Johnson, Alain P. Mathieu, Cesar M. Dulanto

Defense lawyers led by David J.F. Gross of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP persuaded a federal jury that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.'s S10 phones did not violate the trademark rights of a talent-management agency that also uses "S10" in its name. S10 Entertainment and Media LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., 2:21-cv-02443 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 19, 2021).

S10 Entertainment claimed its brand was eroded by the launch of Samsung's Galaxy S10 smartphones.

At a six-day trial, S10 Entertainment's lawyers at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. asserted that "record executives, artists and others who knew the plaintiff were confusing S10 Entertainment with Samsung or asking S10 Entertainment about its partnership, sale to or arrangement with Samsung" that never came to fruition, according to the complaint by Mintz partner Andrew D. Skale.

Gross told jurors during closing argument that there is no overlap in the marketplace for the musicians and songwriters represented by S10 Entertainment and the marketplace for Samsung's S10 smartphones.

Trademark law allows for the peaceful coexistence of similar marks if the products they represent don't directly compete. "And that's what we have in this case," Gross argued.

That reinforced the points made in Samsung's trial brief, signed by Faegre Drinker partner Christopher J. Burrell: that Samsung and S10 Entertainment "operate fundamentally different businesses, have fundamentally different marketing strategies and channels of trade, and target fundamentally different groups of consumers. There is no mistaking the companies or their offerings, and there is no trademark infringement."

The jurors agreed, finding no likelihood of confusion and that Samsung proved its Galaxy S marks predate S10 Entertainment's first use of the S10 mark in commerce.

Lawyers in the case, including Gross and Skale, could not be reached for comment.

Skale was also the lead plaintiff lawyer on the Stitch Editing Ltd.'s trial team in its unsuccessful $116 million service mark infringement lawsuit against TikTok Inc., which ended in another of the Daily Journal's Top Defense Verdicts of 2023. Stitch Editing Ltd. v. TikTok Inc. et al., 3:21-cv-00626 (S.D. Cal., filed Apr. 12, 2021).

-John Roemer