Brighton Collectibles Inc. v. Coldwater Creek Inc.
Published: Feb. 14, 2009 | Result Date: Nov. 21, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 06CV01848(MLH) Verdict – $6,717,000
Court
USDC Southern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Peter W. Ross
(Ross LLP)
Keith J. Wesley
(Ellis George Cipollone O'Brien Annaguey LLP)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Carol Scott
(technical)
Robert W. Wunderlich
(technical)
Defendant
Ellen Goldstein-Lynch
(technical)
Philip Johnson
(technical)
Facts
Brighton Collectibles Inc. designed handbags as well as other products, and sold them under the trademark "Brighton." In addition, Brighton claimed that its products had a distinctive look, commonly known as "Brighton Look." Brighton also owned copyrights to the "Carolina Heart" and "Brighton Scroll" designs, which are used on handbags and related women's accessories. It claimed that Coldwater Creek Inc. intentionally designed, marketed and sold Brighton knockoff bags, called the "Jacquard Line." Brighton sued Coldwater Creek for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, common law unfair competition, and statutory unfair competition.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Brighton claimed that Coldwater Creek intentionally designed, marketed and sold handbags and related accessories that infringed upon Brighton's distinctive trade dress and copyrighted designs. Brighton asserted that consumers were likely to be confused as to the source of Coldwater Creek's accessories. Brighton contended that an expert conducted a survey showing that 85 percent of customers believed that Coldwater Creek handbags were made by Brighton. Brighton claimed that Coldwater Creek's infringement resulted in lost sales and damages to Brighton's goodwill.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Coldwater Creek argued that Brighton's products did not contain the claimed trade dress, the designs were common within the industry, and only three percent of consumers confused Coldwater Creek's products with those of Brighton.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed between $5,000,000 and $12,000,000 in damages.
Result
The jury awarded the plaintiff $6,717,000 in damages, finding intentional infringement and unfair competition with malice, fraud and/or oppression, plus $1,235,404 in attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Sept. 12, 2006.
Length
seven days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390