Ironhawk Technologies Inc. v. Dropbox Inc.
Published: Jan. 17, 2020 | Result Date: Oct. 24, 2019 | Filing Date: Feb. 22, 2018 |Case number: 2:18-cv-01481 DDP (JEMx) Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Matthew L. Venezia
(Browne, George, Ross, O'Brien, Annaguey & Ellis LLP)
Keith J. Wesley
(Ellis George Cipollone O'Brien Annaguey LLP)
Defendant
Clara J. Shin
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Rebecca A. Jacobs
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Jeffrey M. Davidson
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Isaac D. Chaput
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Matthew Q. Verdin
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Diane Ramirez
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Laura Brookover
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Facts
Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. developed software that uses compression and replication to transfer data efficiently in "bandwidth-challenged environments." Ironhawk has marketed this software under the name "SmartSync" and obtained a trademark registration for SmartSync in 2007.
Dropbox, Inc. provides cloud-based file storage and synchronization services that allow users to access files from anywhere on any device. In 2017, Dropbox launched a feature it named "Smart Sync." Dropbox's Smart Sync feature allows users to choose whether files are stored locally or, in the interest of saving hard drive space, online only. Ironhawk filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Dropbox, Inc. as a result of defendant's use of the name Smart Sync.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant's use of the name Smart Sync for its cloud storage feature intentionally infringed upon its Smartsync data transfer technology. Plaintiff further contended the use of the name was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the
affiliation of defendant's product with plaintiff, and did actually
confuse plaintiff's customers as to the relationship between
plaintiff and defendant's product.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that the two trademarks are fundamentally different because they appeal to two different markets and perform two different functions. Defendant contended that plaintiff's only customer is the United States Navy, so there was no danger of consumer confusion.
Result
The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390