This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Trademark Infringement

Arcona Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty LLC, David C. Chung, Mark Veeder

Published: Apr. 26, 2019 | Result Date: Mar. 19, 2019 |

Case number: 2:17-cv-07058-ODW (JPR) Summary Judgment –  Defense in part

Judge

Otis D. Wright II

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

R. Joseph Trojan
(Trojan Law Offices)

Dylan C. Dang
(Trojan Law Offices)

Francis Wong
(Trojan Law Offices)


Defendant

Colin W. Fraser
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)

James L. Ryerson
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)

Jeffrey K. Joyner
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)


Facts

Arcona Inc. filed a trademark infringement action against Farmacy Beauty LLC and its officers, David Chung and Mark Veeder, in relation to Arcona's Eye Dew mark, which covers various beauty product uses.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Arcona contended it filed for its registered trademark No. 4,706,079 on April 18, 2012, with a first use date of Jan. 1, 2002. Farmacy began selling an eye cream product entitled also entitled Eye Dew in 2015, and ceased sales of the product in September 2017. Arcona asserted various trademark infringement claims against defendants, including counterfeiting. Arcona argued that the court should only consider defendants' use of the phrase Eye Dew while ignoring the product as a whole.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Arcona's claim that defendants' Eye Dew product was a counterfeit of Arcona's Eye Dew products.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's counterfeiting claim. The court found that no reasonable jury could find defendants' Eye Dew product was a counterfeit of Arcona's products, since the only similarity between the two is the name. Further, the court noted defendants' product did not purport to be Arcona's product, and the packaging was neither identical nor substantially indistinguishable.

Other Information

Arcona's other causes of action remain before the court.


#131630

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390