Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 1 of 9

UN ITE D STA TES DIST R IC T C O U RT

SO U TH ER N DISTRIC T O F FL O R ID A
CA SE N O .13-24124

K ED EM ,LLC,

Plaintiff/counter-Defendant

TEA M m TERN A TION A L GROU P

O F A M ERICA ,lN C.,
Defendant/counter-plaintiff
/

ORDER DENYING SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT

TH IS M ATTER is before the Coul'ton D efendant/counter-plaintiffTeam International

GroupofAmerica,Inc.'sM otionforSummaryJudgment(DE-70j.On January27,2015,the

Courtheard argumentfrom counselon them otion. Thisaction arisesfrom a failed business
venturebetween PlaintiffandDefendanttom anufacttlre and marketaverticalcooking device,
forwhich Plaintiffholdstw o design patents. As a resultofthe unsuccessfulbusiness venture,

Plaintiff,Kedem ,LLC hasfiled asix countSecond Am ended Complaint.l In response,

D efendantfiled a fourcountcounterclaim .z

l'
I'hesix countsofPlaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaintare:(1)infringementofU.S.
DesignPatentNos.D686,869and13694,057;(2)breachofcontract;(3)federalunfair
competition,falsedescription,andfalsedesignationoforiginastomarks,15U.S.C.j 1125(a);
(4)common1aw unfaircompetitionandtrademarkinfringement;(5)cancellation ofDefendant's
trademark registrationno.4351565;and(6)breachofcompensationagreement.
zDefendant'scounterclaim allegesclaimsfor:(1)adeclarationofinvalidityofU.S.
DesignPatentNo.17686,869;(2)adeclarationofinvalidityofU.S.PatentDesign PatentNo.
17694,057;(3)adeclarationastowhoownsthetrademarkStRollie''andwhetheritisavalid
federaltrademarkregistration;and(4)breachofcontract.

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 2 of 9

Defendantnow seekssummaryjudgmentdeclaringU.S.Design PatentNos.17686,869

and17694,057 invalid foranticipation anddenying Plaintiff'strademark claim sbecausePlaintiff
isnotthe ow nerofthe tradem ark atissue and Defendantneverassigned the tradem ark to

Plaintiff.3 BecauseDefendanthasnotshown thatthedesign wasanticipated by earlierpatents

andpublicationsand becausegenuineissuesofm aterialfactexistasto whetherDefendantisthe

actualownerofthediRollie''trademark,summaryjudgmentisdenied.
1.

U N DISPU TED M A TER IA L FA C TS4

Plaintiff,Kedem LLC (Kedem)istheassigneeofU.S.DesignPatentNo.9686,869,

issuedJuly30,2013(the t869Patent).The$869Patentisentitled sAssemblyforCooking
Elongated Food Products.''Kedem isalso theassigneeofU,S.Design PatentNo.D694,057,

issuedNovember26,2013(the $057Patent).The:057PatentisalsoentitledSlAssemblyfor
Cooking Elongated Food Products''and isacontinuation ofthe$869 Patent. Thesedesign

patentsareforacookingdeviceforpreparingmoldedfoodproducts(theProduct).Specifically,
they producea cookedproductin theshapeofa long,thin cylinder.
Nothaving theability tom anufacture and marketthe Productitself,on Decem ber16,
2011,priorto theissuance ofthe :869 and $057Patentsbutwhiletheapplicationswere pending,

Kedem enteredintoaM anufacture,M arketing& DistributionLicenseAgreement(the

Agreement)withDefendantTeam'InternationalGroupofAmerica,lnc.,doingbusinessas
Kalorik (TIGA).(DE-40-4.)UnderthetermsoftheAgreement,Kedem licensedtoTIGA the
3w hileDefendant'smotion statesthat,ifgranted,itwould bedispositive ofa1lof
Plaintiff sclaim s,ifgranted,itwould also bedispositiveofthreeofDefendant'scounterclaim s.

4somefactshavebeentakenfrom Plaintiff'sSecond AmendedComplaintgDE-401.

Those factsare included togiveam orecompletepicturebutarenotrelevanttothedecision.
2

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 3 of 9

righttodtdesign,manufacture,market,sellanddistribute''theProduct.(1d atj5.l.) The

Agreementincluded licensesforthe designpatentapplicationsand thetradem ark S'Eggmaster,''

whichwasused inconjunction withtheProduct.(1d atjj5.4,5.3.) Thetrademarklicensealso

statedthatitincluded Stany additionalU.S.trademarkswhich Kedem m ay pursueand/orsecure
which are directly related to theKedem Trademark,''which wasdefined asthe iiEggm aster''

markandanyfuturetrademarks.(f#.atj5.3.1.)Additionally,theAgreementcontainedthe
follow ing language:

Kedem shallown a11right,title,andinteresttoanyadditionaltrademarkts)orTrade

Dress...forthe Product,whethercreated by Kedem orTIGA,whetherdirectly or
indirectly.

(1d atj5.7.)
ln the sum m erof2012,TIGA and K edem discussed other possible nam es forthe Product

anddecidedtochangethenameoftheProductfrom tsEggmaster''toi$Ro11ie.''5(DE-7l-3,! 12.)

lnJuly2012,TIGA tiled atrademarkapplication with theU.S.Patentand Trademark Officefor

thennme$$Ro11ie.''(1d at! 13;DE-40-5.) TheapplicationnamedTIGA theownerofthe

trademark.(DE-40-5.)Theapplicationwasfiledpursuantto 15U.S.C.j 1051(b).(f#.)Kedem
objectedtothefilingbutTIGA hasrefusedtocancelortransfertoKedem theRollietrademark
registration.(1d at! 15.)
Asaresultofthisand otheralleged breachesoftheAgreem ent,on April12,2013,
K edem delivered a notice ofbreach to TIG A ,pursuantto the tel'm s ofthe A greem ent. TIGA

s'
rhefactsrelatingtothese discussionsand thedevelopmentoftheRollietrademark are
ofgreatim portto determ ining who ownsthetrademark - one oftheissuesbeforethe Court.

However,neithersidehaspresentedthesefactstotheCourtaspartofthesummaryjudgment
briefing.These factswillhaveto bepresented attrial.

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 4 of 9

responded by stating thatithad substantially complied withtheAgreementand continuedto

m arkettheProduct. In Novem ber2013,Kedem filedtheinstantlawsuitalleging six counts
againstTIGA. TIGA filed itscounterclaim and athird-party complaintagainstRam con Corp.,a
com pany owned by the sam e person who ow nsKedem . TIGA now m oves forsum m ary

judgmentonallcountsofKedem'scomplaint.TIGA arguesthatsummaryjudgmentis
appropriate because thedesign patentsatissueare invalid and because Kedem isnottheowner
oftheRollietradem ark and,thus,Kedem cannotbring itstradem ark claim s.

II.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANbARD

Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhen 'dthepleadings...show thatthereisnogenuine

issueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatterof
lam ''Andersonv.fiberty Lobby,Inc.,477U,S.242,247(1986);HCA Hea1thServs.ofGa.,Inc.
v.EmployersHea1thlns.Co.,240F.3d 982,991(11th Cir.2001).Oncethemovingparty
demonstratestheabsence ofa genuineissue ofmaterialfact,thenon-m ovingparty must(icome

forward with tspecificfactsshowingthatthere isa genuine issue fortrial.'''M atsushita Elec.

lndus.Co.v.ZenithRadio Corp.,475U.S.574,587(1986)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.56(e)).The
Courtmustview the record and allfactualinferencestherefrom in thelightm ostfavorabletothe
non-movingparty and decidewhetherdiithe evidencepresentsa sufficientdisagreem entto

requiresubmissiontoajuryorwhetheritisso one-sidedthatonepartymustprevailasamatter
of1aw.'''Allenv.TysonFoods,Inc.,121F.3d642,646(11thCir.1997)(quotingAnderson,477
U.S.at251-52)).

Inopposingamotionforsummaryjudgment,thenon-movingpartymaynotrelysolely
on thepleadings,butm ustshow by affidavits,depositions,answezsto interrogatories,and
4

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 5 of 9

admissionsthatspecificfactsexistdemonstrating a genuineissue fortrial. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

56(c),(e);seealsoCelotexCorp.v.Catretts477U.S.317,324(1986).A mereSscintilla''of
evidencesupportingtheopposing party'sposition willnotsuffice;instead,therem ustbea

sufficientshowingthatthejurycouldreasonablyfindforthatparty.Anderson,477U.S.at252;
seealso Walkerv.Darby,911F.2d 1573,1577(11thCir.1990).
111.

D ISCU SSIO N

A.

DefendantHasNotEstablished thatthe6689 and (057 Design PatentsW ere

A nticipated by the Prior Art

TIGA m aintains thatthe $689 and :057 Design Patentsare invalid becausethey w ere

anticipatedbyKedem'sU.S.PatentApplicationPublicationNo.20l1/256302(Publication 302).
Specifically,TIGA assertsthatFigures45,45A,51,52,and 53in Publication 1302 arevirtually
identicalorsubstantially similarto the aestheticdesign in the $689 design patentand the 1057

designpatent.TIGA hasnotmetitsburden to establish invalidity and,therefore,sum mary

judgmentisnotappropriate.
Thepartiesagreethatthetestto determinewhetheradesign patentisinvalid as

anticipated istheitordinary observer''test. SeeInternationalSeaway Trading Corp.v.

WalgreensCorp.,589F.3d 1233,1240(Fed.Cir.2009).Theordinaryobservertestwassetout
bytheSupremeCourtin Gorham ManufacturingCo.v.White,81U.S.511,528(1871):
if,in theeyeofan ordinary observer,giving such attention asa purchaserusually gives,
two designsare substantially the same,iftheresem blanceissuch asto deceive such an
observer,inducing him to purchaseonesupposing itto betheother,thefirstonepatented
is infringed by the other.
Further,invalidity mustbeestablished by clearand convincing evidence.Apotex USA,lnc.v,

M erckdrCo.,254F.3d 1031,1036(Fed.Cir.2001).Thus,inordertoprevail,TIGA mustshow,

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 6 of 9

by clearand convincing evidence,thatan ordinary observerw ould tind the design in Figures 45,

45A,51,52,and 53 ofPublication :302 substantially sim ilarto thedesignsin the 1689 and $057
D esign Patents,such thatthe purchaserwould be induced to purchase one,thinking itisthe
other.

TIGA hasnotshown by clearand convincingevidencethatthe designsare substantially

similar.Comparing thedrawingsin the :689 and 1057 Design Patentswith Figures45,45A,51,

52,and 53 in Publication t302 doesnotclearly lead to theconclusion thatthey are substantially

similarsuch thatan ordinary obselverwould bedeceived into purchasingonebelieving itto be
theother.Even acursory review ofthedrawingsshowsdifferences,such asthetwo sim ilar

sized circlesnearthebottom ofthepatented designsversustheonelargecircleflanked by two

smallcirclesin the sam espotinthefiguresfrom the $302 publication,differencesin texture
between them iddleportionsofthepatented designsand the tiguresfrom the :302 publication,
and distinctly differentdesignsoftheupperrim ofthe devices.Because ofthesedifferences,a
genuineissueofmaterialfactexistsasto whetheran ordinaryobserverwould find thedesignsin

thePatentsandthePublicationsubstantiallysimilar.Consequently,summaryjudgmenton
invalidity isdenied.
B.

G enuine Issues ofM aterialFactExistas to W ho Ow nsthe SdR ollie''

T radem ark

TIGA movesforsummaryjudgmentonCounts111,1V,andV oftheSecondAmended

Com plaintbecause it,notPlaintiff,owns the Rollie tradem ark. TIGA m aintainsthatthese three
claim sare prem ised on K edem ow ning the Rollie tradem ark and,therefore,the claim s a11fail

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 7 of 9

becauseKedem doesnotown thetradem ark.Atissue isintep retation ofparagraph 5.7 ofthe

parties'A greem ent,w hich states,in relevantpart:

Kedem shallown al1right,title,andinteresttoanyadditionaltrademarkts)orTrade

Dress...fortheProduct,whethercreated by Kedem orTIGA,whetherdirectly or
indirectly.
TIGA intep retsthisclause asan assigmnentofany trademark ortradedressobtained byTIGA
and,assuch,TIGA arguesitisinvalid. Kedem assertsthattheclauseisnotan assignm entbuta
contractualagreementregarding ownership.A ccording toK edem ,TIGA breached thisclauseof
theAgreem entwhen itfiledthetradem ark application listing itselfastheowneroftheRollie
tradem ark.

TIGA'SmotionjustassumesthatitistheproperowneroftheRollietrademarkbasedon
the filing ofthetradem ark application.Based on thisassum ption,TIGA assertsthattheonly

plausibleinterpretationofj5.7isasanassignmentclause.Therearetwoproblemswith
TIGA 'Sargum ents:First,TIGA 'S insistence thatthisclause isan assignm entisnotsupported by

thelanguageusedinj5.7ortherestoftheAgreement.Thereisnouseoftheterm iiassign,''or
itsderivatives,in j5.7.Thereisnothinginthelanguageofthisclauseortherestofthe
Agreementindicating thatthe partiesintended thisclauseto bean assignm entoffuture obtained
intellectualproperty.Second,therecord doesnotsupportTIGA 'sassumption thatitisthe owner
oftheRolliem ark.

There isnorecord evidence establishing TIGA'Sownership ofthem ark atthetime TIGA

filed thetradem ark application, W hileTIGA 'Sreply correctly arguesthatownership ofa
tradem ark isbased on usage,there isno record evidence thatTIG A used the Rollie tradem ark in

comm ercepriorto filing thetradem ark application.ln fact,atthe January 27hearing,TIGA 'S

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 8 of 9

counselconceded thatithad no knowledge orevidence ofuse oftheR ollie m ark priorto the

filing oftheRollietrademark application with the U.S.Patentand Trademark Office.

Furthermore,theapplicationwasfiledpursuantto 15U.S.C.j 1051(b),whichpermitsthefiling

ofan application based on abona fideintention to usethemark in com merce,asopposedto an
application based on am ark'spriorusein com merce.Thus,atthetim ethe trademark

application wasfiled itappearsthatTIGA hadnotyetusedthemark incommerce.Given j5.7

oftheAgreem ent,which made Kedem theownerofany trademark developed forusewith the
Product,Kedem would bethe owneroftheRollie mark,ifitwere developed forusewith the
Product.6
Atthe hearing,TIGA asserted thattheRollie mark wasdeveloped foruse with many

products,notjusttheProductatissuehere.Thus,TIGA arguesthattheRolliemarkwasnot
coveredby j5.7oftheAgreement.Underthesecircumstances,agenuineissueofmaterialfact
existsasto whetherTIG A was the ownerofthe m ark atthe tim e TIGA filed the tradem ark

application.Thus,attrial,ajurymustdeterminewhethertheRolliemarkfallswiththelanguage
ofj5.7asamarkStfortheProduct,whethercreatedbyKedem orTIGA,whetherdirectlyor
indirectly.'' Consequently,asnoted earlier,the factssurrounding the developm entofthemark

andtheagreementtousethemarkinconjunctionwiththeProductarekeyfactsandwillneedto

6coul'
tshavenoted thatpartiesto acontractcan agreetoownership offuture developed
intellectualproperty. See Pinnacle Pizza Co.v.f ittle CaesarEnterprises,lnc.,560 F.Supp.2d

786,800-01(D.S.D.2008)(enforcingcontractthatstatedthatdefendanthasdthesolerighttouse
suchtrademarks...presentlyexistingortobeacquiredinthefuture''');PilotCorp.ofAmerica
v.Fisher-price,Inc.,501F.Supp.2d292,298(D.Corm.2007)(notingthatownershipof
intellectualpropertycanbetransferredeitherbeforeorafteritiscreated).

Case 1:13-cv-24124-PAS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 9 of 9

bepresentedattrialtoallow ajurytodeterminewhetherthemarkwasdevelopedSsforthe
Product.''Asaresult,summaryjudgmentmustbedenied.
A ccordingly,itis hereby

ORDERED thatDefendant/counter-plaintiff/Third-pahyPlaintiffTeam lnternational

GroupofAmerica,Inc.'sM otionforSummaryJudgment(DE-70jisDENIED.

DoxEandoRosltso inMiami,Florida,this Bo dayot-

,2 15.
*

a
*

PA TRICIA A .SEITZ
U N ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT JUD G E
cc:

A 11CounselofRecord