Gov Uscourts Ca2 14-4748 52 0 PDF

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page1 of 91
No. 14-4748
In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
C & L INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC., and KAM NG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
K & C INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC.,

Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN TIBETAN HEALTH INSTITUTE, INC., CHUNG KEE (USA)

INTERNATIONAL INC., YAT CHAU (USA) INC., TUNG REN TANG, RON FENG
TRADING INC., YONG LONG SUPERMARKET INC., KANG LI TRADING INC., and PO
WING HONG FOOD MARKET INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
FARGO TRADING INC.,

Defendant.
On appeal from the Amended Opinion and Injunction dated December 3, 2014,
entered by the Honorable Louis L. Stanton, United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in Civil Actions Nos. 13-cv-2368 and 13-cv-2763
APPELLANTS BRIEF
MITCHELL M. WONG
Counsel of Record
ASHMASONS LLP
Forty Wall Street, Floor 28
New York, New York 10005
(212) 671-1068
mitchell.wong@ashmasons.com
Counsel for Appellants
CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT
PursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure26.1,
AppellantC&LInternationalTradingInc.disclosesthatitisnot
apubliclyheldcorporation,hasnoparentcorporation,andno
publiclyheldcorporationowns10%ormoreofitsstock.
TABLEOFCONTENTS
CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT
TABLEOFCONTENTS...............................................................................i
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES........................................................................iv
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT...................................................................1
STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION............................................................8
STATEMENTOFRELATEDCASES........................................................9
STATEMENTOFTHEISSUES................................................................11
STATEMENTOFTHECASE...................................................................12
STATEMENTOFFACTS..........................................................................16
A. FactualBackground..............................................................16
B. RelevantTrademarkRegistrations.....................................19
C. ProceedingsBelow................................................................21
SUMMARYOFARGUMENT..................................................................24
STANDARDOFREVIEW........................................................................25
ARGUMENT...............................................................................................26
I. TheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea
cannotbemonopolizedasatrademark
forTibetanherbalteas..........................................................26
A. TheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea
translatesintoTibetanherbaltea..........................26
1. Thedistrictcourtimplicitlyfound
thatthetermbaicaomeansherbal..........26
2. ThisCourtcanalsotakejudicial
noticefrompopularliteratureand
freeinternettranslatorsthatthe
termbaicaomeansherbal.........................34
3. Inrelatedproceedings,theU.S.
Patent&TrademarkOfficehas
determinedthatthetermbaicao
meansherbal.................................................37
4. EvenATHIimplicitlyhad
acknowledgedthattheterm
baicaomeansherbal..................................42
B. TheadjectiveTibetancannotbe
trademarkedherebecauseitis
descriptiveoftheTibetanherbalteasat
issue...............................................................................45
C. Thefreedomtousegeographictermsas
descriptiveproductnamesisespecially
importantforteas........................................................50
ii
II. ThecatchallprovisionsofParagraphs1
and9donotstatetheactsenjoinedwiththe
specificityrequiredbyFed.R.Civ.P.65(d).........................55
A. TheactsthatParagraph9seekstoenjoin
arenotadequatelyspecified,nornarrowly
tailoredtotheissuestriedbelow..............................55
B. TheactsthatParagraph1seekstoenjoin
tailoredtotheissuestriedbelow..............................63
III. EveniftheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea
couldbetrademarked,thedistrictcourt
shouldhavedeniedinjunctivereliefonthe
doctrineofuncleanhands....................................................66
IV. Theissuesraisedonthisappealcanbe
remedieddirectlybyvacaturwithout
furtherproceedings...............................................................76
CHARTSUMMARIZINGTRANSLATION
ISSUESOVERTIBETANBAICAOTEA.............................................80
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................81
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
iii
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
StatutesandCodes:
15U.S.C.1052(e)(2).............................................................5,47,49
15U.S.C.1115(b)(4).............................................................5,47,50
15U.S.C.1125(a)(1)..................................................................5859
FED.R.CIV.P.65(d)(1)(B)..................................................................56
FED.R.CIV.P.65(d)(1)(C)..................................................................56
FED.R.EVID.201(b)(2).................................................................34,37
Cases:
BowmanTransp.,Inc.v.
ArkansasBestFreightSystem,Inc.,
419U.S.281(1974)...........................................................32,34
CanalCo.v.Clark,
80U.S.(13Wall.)311(1872)............................5,4547,50,54
ChaseManhattanv.AmericanNat.Bank,
93F.3d1064(2dCir.1996)...................................................77
CityofNewYorkv.MickalisPawnShop,LLC,
645F.3d114(2dCir.2011)........................6,57,6061,63,66
iv
DesignStrategy,Inc.v.Davis,
469F.3d284(2dCir.2006)...................................................25
Hirschv.ArthurAndersen&Co.,
72F.3d1085(2dCir.1995)...................................................35
Kingv.Commissioner,
458F.2d245(6thCir.1972)..................................................77
Linebackv.SpurlinoMaterials,LLC,
546F.3d491(7thCir.2008)...........................57,6061,63,66
Malev.CrossroadsAssociates,
469F.2d616(2dCir.1972)...................................................77
Malletierv.BurlingtonCoatFactoryWarehouseCorp.,
426F.3d532(2dCir.2005)...................................................25
Meccanov.Wanamaker,
253U.S.136(1920).................................................................25
PeregrineMyanmarLtd.v.Segal,
89F.3d41(2dCir.1996).....................................67,59,6263
Register.com,Inc.v.Verio,Inc.,
356F.3d393(2dCir.2004)...................................................25
RosemontEnterprises,Inc.v.RandomHouse,Inc.,
366F.2d303(2dCir.1966)...................................................67
Rothmanv.Gregor,
220F.3d81(2dCir.2000).....................................................35
Schmidtv.Lessard,
414U.S.473(1974).................................................................56
StarbucksCorp.v.WolfesBoroughCoffee,Inc.,
588F.3d97(2dCir.2009).....................................................25
Stetsonv.HowardD.Wolf&Assocs.,
955F.2d847(2dCir.1992)...................................................77
SecondaryAuthorities:
Dictionary.com(entryfordefinitionofTibetan),
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tibetan?s=t
(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)............................................................48
HELENSABIERI,TEA,AGLOBALHISTORY
(ReaktionBooks2010)..................................................................51
ZHIGANGSHA,TAOII:THEWAYOFHEALING,
REJUVENATION,LONGEVITY,ANDIMMORTALITY
(AtriaBooks2010)..........................................................8,37,6768
DAVIDA.TAYLOR,GINSENG,THEDIVINEROOT
(Algonquin2006)...........................................................................52
9ACHARLESA.WRIGHT&ARTHURR.MILLER,FEDERAL
PRACTICEANDPROCEDURE2577(2ded.1994)........................77
vi
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT
Thisappealconcernsatrademarkdisputebetweentwosetsof
competingteamerchants.
TheAppellantsareteamerchantsheadquarteredinNewYork
(hereinafter,NewYorkmerchants).TheAppelleeATHIisa
competingteabusinessheadquarteredinCalifornia.
BothsetsofteamakerssellherbalteasformulatedinTibet.
BothsetsofteamakersalsodescribetheirTibetanherbalteasusing
thesameEnglishlanguageandChineselanguageexpressions.
Specifically,bothteamakersusetheexpressionTibetanBaicaoTea,
aswellasthatexpressionsChineseequivalent().
Thesecompetingenterprisesbroughttheactionsbelowtocontest
theirrespectiverightstotheseexpressions.
Thetrialcourtinitiallyenteredapermanentinjunctionagainst
theNewYorkmerchants,forbiddingtheNewYorkmerchantsfrom
usingtheexpressionsbaicao,1baicaotea,2andTibetanbaicao
A90A919,13&14.
1
tea.3Theinjunctionfurtherenjoinedtheuseoftheseexpressionsin
anylanguage,includingbutnotlimitedtoEnglish,Chinese,or
Tibetantransliterations.4
TheNewYorkmerchantsobjectedtothescopeofthe
injunction.Specifically,theNewYorkmerchantspointedoutthat
theenjoinedtermbaicaowasthepinyinRomanizationoftheChinese
charactersforherbsorherbal.Thus,theinjunctionbarredthe
NewYorkmerchantswhomadetheirlivingsellingherbalteasin
theChinesecommunityfromusingtheeverydayChinesewordsfor
herbal(baicao),herbaltea(baicaotea),andTibetanherbal
tea(Tibetanbaicaotea)inanylanguage,includingbutnotlimited
toEnglish,Chinese,orTibetan.5
TheNewYorkmerchantsinvitedthedistrictcourttoconfirm
baicaostranslationsimplybycopyingthetwoChinesecharactersfor
3
4
5
A91at12.
A90at7.
A91at14.
A91at14.
2
baicao()intoeitherGooglesfreeinternettranslator6or
Microsoftsfreeinternettranslator7.
Incontrast,ATHIarguedthattheinjunctionoughtnotbe
amendedatall.8DespitetheGoogleandMicrosofttranslations,
ATHIvehementlydeniedanysuchtranslation:[C]ertainlytheterm
herbalactuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall.9
Instead,ATHIclaimedthatthetermbaicaodoesntmean
anything,10andwasafancifultermthat[ATHIspresident]came
upwith11approximatelysixyearsagoonApril8,200912.ATHIs
argumentsechoedthestatementstheyrepeatedlymadebeforethe
U.S.TrademarkOfficethat[t]hewordingBAICAOhasnomeaning
inaforeignlanguage.13
8
9
10
11
12
7
13
http://translate.google.com/
http://www.bing.com/translator/
A145,atlines89.
A143A144,atlines7:258:1.
A144,atline12.
A144,atlines1719.
A59(ATHIclaimingdateofitsFirstUseofthetermbaicaoas
Apr.08,2009).
A59(Translationstatement),A28(same)&A30(same).
3
Afterconductingseveralhearingsontheissue,thedistrictcourt
amendedtheinitialinjunctiontostrikeallreferencestobaicao(i.e.,
herbal)orbaicaotea(i.e.,herbaltea).14However,thedistrict
courtnonethelessmaintainedthattheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea
wasstillprotectable.Thedistrictcourtthuscontinuestobar
permanentlytheNewYorkmerchantsfromusingthetermTibetan
baicaoteainEnglishoranyforeignequivalent.15
Achartsummarizingthetranslationissuesinthiscaseappears
onPage80nearthebackofthisbrief.Fromtheamendedinjunction,
theNewYorkmerchantsnowappealonthreegrounds.
First,thedistrictcourterredinbelievingthattheadditionofthe
geographicadjectiveTibetantotheotherwiseunprotectableterms
baicaotea/herbalteaimbuedthecollectivetermTibetanbaicaotea
14
15
CompareA90A9110&1214(originalJuneinjunctions
provisionsforbaicaoandbaicaotea)withA185A186at
19(Decemberamendedinjunctionsprovisions).
A186at7.
4
withtrademarkrights.16BoththeTrademarkAct17andtheSupreme
Court18unambiguouslyteachthatthenamesofgeographiclocations
canneverserveasatrademarkwhenthosetermsareusedtodrawa
geographicconnection.
Second,thedistrictcourterredbyinsertingParagraphs1and9
ascatchallprovisionsintendedtoregulateallpotentialfuture
interactionsbetweenATHIandtheNewYorkmerchants,including
interactionsunrelatedtothisaction.ThesetwoParagraphsare
defectiveunderFed.R.Civ.P.65(d)forthreereasons:
16
17
18
A149,atlines2225(Itseemstomethatthetruevisionofthe
situationisthatthetrademarkisTibetanBaicaoTea,and
thatswhatshouldbeprotected,otherthananysinglewordin
thegroup.).
15U.S.C.1052(e)(2)(authorizingTrademarkOfficetorefuse
registrationforanymarkwhichisprimarilygeographically
descriptive;15U.S.C.1115(b)(4)(establishingdefenseagainst
infringementformarksusedtodescribegeographicoriginof
goodsorservices).
CanalCo.v.Clark,80U.S.(13Wall.)311,32425(1872)
(geographicnamespointonlyattheplaceofproduction,not
totheproducer,and[if]they[could]beappropriated
exclusively,theappropriationwouldresultinmischievous
monopolies).
5
(A) Paragraph9wascouchedinlanguagealmostverbatimto
thetrademarkstatute,inviolationoftherulethatan
injunctionmustprovidemoredetailthanjustan
exhortationtoobeythelaw.19
(B) Paragraph9sprovisionscoveredallATHIgoods
includingcountlessATHIgoodsthatwerenotthesubject
oftheunderlyingactionsinviolationoftherulethat
injunctionsshouldbenarrowlytailoredtocoveronlythe
subjectmatterofthelitigation.20
Similarly,Paragraph1scommandthattheNew
YorkmerchantsnotrunafoulofATHIsproduct
brandingorpackaging21wasinappropriatelyoverbroad
19
20
21
PeregrineMyanmarLtd.v.Segal,89F.3d41,51(2dCir.1996)
([A]ninjunctionmustbemorespecificthanasimple
commandthatthedefendantobeythelaw.).
CityofNewYorkv.MickalisPawnShop,LLC,645F.3d114,
144(2dCir.2011)([I]njunctivereliefshouldbenarrowly
tailoredtofitspecificlegalviolations,andthatthecourtmust
mouldeachdecreetothenecessitiesoftheparticularcase.)
(collectingcases)(citationsomitted).
A185at1.
6
wherethedistrictcourthadruledexplicitlythatthe
issueslitigated[we]rethewords[Tibetanbaicaotea]22
andnotthepictures23thatcomprisedtheproduct
brandingorpackagingthatParagraph1soughtto
regulate.
(C) Finally,bydescribingtheactstobeenjoinedbyreference
tohowothersmightreacttotheNewYorkmerchants
futureactions,Paragraph9doesnotdetailtheenjoined
actswithsufficientcertainty.24
Third,inviewoftheobjectivelyunreasonablestancestakenby
ATHIinconnectionwiththetermbaicao,thedistrictcourtshould
havedeniedanyinjunctivereliefunderthedoctrineofunclean
hands.InviewofGooglestranslation,Microsoftstranslation,and
22
23
24
A160,atlines1016.
A160,atlines1016(emphasisadded).
PeregrineMyanmar,89F.3dat51(2dCir.1996)(Injunction
requiringlitiganttotakeallotherreasonablyneedfulactions
tofacilitateplaintiffsresumptionoftheirmanagement
authorityin[twobusinesses]wasalsoheldtoviolateRule65
becausetherewasnowayforthelitiganttoknowwhatall
otherreasonablyneedfulactionsmean[t].).
7
mostdamningly,aNewYorkTimesbestsellersbookspecifically
identifyingthetermbaicaoasfamous[and]ancient,25ATHIs
argumentthatithadinventedthetermbaicaoapproximatelysixyears
agoonApril8,200926wassoobjectivelyunreasonablethatit
amountedtotheworkofuncleanhands.
Forthesereasons,theNewYorkmerchantsrequestthatthis
Courtvacatethedistrictcourtsamendedinjunction.
STATEMENTOFJURISIDCTION
ThisCourtisauthorizedtoexerciseappellatejurisdiction
pursuantto28U.S.C.1292(a)(1).Subjectmatterjurisdictionover
theunderlyingclaimsisprovidedby28U.S.C.1331&1367.
25
26
ZHIGANGSHA,TAOII:THEWAYOFHEALING,REJUVENATION,
LONGEVITY,ANDIMMORTALITY21(AtriaBooks2010)
[hereinafter,SHA,TAOII].
A59(allegingdateofFirstUseofthetermbaicaoasApr.08,
2009).
8
STATEMENTOFRELATEDCASES
Therearefourproceedingsrelatedtothisappeal:
(1) AsacknowledgedbythedistrictcourtinParagraph927ofthe
originalJuneinjunction,onApr.3,2013,AppelleeATHIfiled
U.S.TrademarkApplicationSerialNo.85/894,301withtheU.S.
Patent&TrademarkOffice(USPTO)forthemark
[ChineseforTibetanBaicaoTea].Pursuantto
37C.F.R.2.67andTMEP716.02(a),(c)(d),onJanuary30,
2014,theUSPTO,actingonitsowninitiative,suspended
considerationoftheapplicationpendingtheterminationofthe
underlyingactions.28
(2)
AsacknowledgedbythedistrictcourtinParagraph1029ofthe
originalJuneinjunction,onMay22,2013,AppelleeATHIfiled
U.S.TrademarkApplicationSerialNo.85/939,652withthe
27
28
29
A90at9.
SuspensionNoticefromU.S.TrademarkExaminerCurtis
French,U.S.TrademarkApplicationSerialNo.85/894,301
<http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85894301&do
cId=SUL20140130173508#docIndex=0&page=1>(Jan.30,2014).
A90at10.
9
USPTOforthemarkBaicaowiththeU.S.Patent&Trademark
Office(USPTO).Pursuantto37C.F.R.2.67andTMEP
716.02(a),(c)(d),onJanuary30,2014,theUSPTO,actingon
itsowninitiative,suspendedconsiderationoftheapplication
pendingtheterminationoftheunderlyingactions.30
(3)
OnNovember21,2013,AppelleeATHIcommencedacivil
actionintheSupremeCourtoftheStateofNewYork,New
YorkCounty,styledAmericanTibetanHealthInstitutev.K&C
IntlTradingInc.,No.654038/13,seekingcancellationof
DefendantK&CIntlTradingInc.sNewYorktrademark
registrationforitsteapackaging.ThisNewYorkStateactionis
currentlypending.
(4) OnSeptember8,2014,AppelleeATHIfiledaPetitionfor
Cancellation,No.92059991,withtheUSPTOofAppellantMs.
NgsU.S.TrademarkRegistrationNo.4,247,693[Tibetan
30
SuspensionNoticefromU.S.TrademarkExaminerCurtis
French,U.S.TrademarkApplicationSerialNo.85/939,652
cId=SUL20140130173453#docIndex=0&page=1>(Jan.30,2014).
10
BaicaoTea].OnFebruary9,2015,theTrademarkTrialand
AppealBoardsuspendedproceedingspendingaresponsefrom
Ms.Ng.31
STATEMENTOFISSUES
1.
CanaretailerofTibetanherbalteaspreventcompeting
merchantsfromusingtheexpressionTibetanherbaltea(in
Englishoranyforeignequivalent)tomarketTibetanherbal
teas?
2.
DothecatchallprovisionsembodiedbyParagraphs1and9
oftheAmendedInjunctionstatetheactstobeenjoinedwiththe
degreeofspecificityrequiredbyFed.R.Civ.P.65(d)?
3.
ShouldtheAppelleesobjectivelyunreasonableargumentsin
thedistrictcourtandtheTrademarkOfficeconcerningthe
31
DecisionoftheUnitedStatesTrademarkTrialandAppeal
BoarddenyingATHIsMotionforDefaultJudgmentat3
<http://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=4247693&docInd
ex=1#docIndex=1>(Feb.9,2015)(Pendingaresponsetothis
orderfromRespondent,thecancellationproceedingis
SUSPENDED.)(emphasisinoriginal).
11
meaningofthetermbaicaobarequitablereliefunderthe
doctrineofuncleanhands?
STATEMENTOFTHECASE
Thisappealarisesoutoftwoseparateactionsbroughtby
competingteabusinesses.TheAppellantsareteamerchantsfrom
NewYork,andtheAppelleeisateacompanyfromCalifornia.
Thelitigantsbroughtduelingactionsagainsteachotherinthe
U.S.DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkovertea
descriptionscontainingtheChinesepinyintermbaicao.The
separateactionswereconsolidatedbeforeTheHonorableLouisL.
Stanton,andATHImovedforapreliminaryinjunction.
Thedistrictcourtconsolidatedthepreliminaryinjunction
hearingwithalimitedjurytrialunderFed.R.Civ.P.65(a)(2).Atthe
limitedtrial,onlytwoquestionswereputtothejury:(1)whichofthe
partieshadmadefirstuseofthemarkswiththebaicaoterm;and(2)
12
whetherATHIhadabandoneditsmarkwhenATHIstoppedusing
themarkfor10months.32
ThejuryfoundinfavorofATHIonboththesequestions:the
juryconcludedthatATHIusedthebaicaocontainingnamesfirst,and
thatATHIhadnotabandonedthemarks.33Uponthesefindings,on
June25,2014,thedistrictcourtissuedapermanentinjunction
prohibitingtheNewYorkmerchantsfromusingthetermbaicao34or
anyphrasecontainingtheexpressionbaicaoinconnectionwiththe
saleofherbalteas.35
TheNewYorkherbalteamerchantsimmediatelyobjectedto
thescopeoftheinjunction.Specifically,theNewYorkmerchants
pointedoutthatthetermbaicaomeansherbsorherbalin
Chinese.TheNewYorkmerchantsinvited36thedistrictcourtto
32
33
34
35
36
A179.
A179.
A90at10&14.
A90at7,9&1213.
A142A143,atlines6:257:4(ThetermBaicaoisnecessarily
understoodtobeherbal.Itcanbeverifiedbytypingitinto
GoogleTranslateorMicrosoftssearchengine.Wecanallsee
13
confirmthistranslationsimplybycopyingandpastingthetwo
Chinesecharactersforbaicao()intoreliableandfreeinternet
translationservicessuchasGoogleTranslate37orMicrosoftsBing
Translator38.Underthesetranslations,theinjunctionwouldtherefore
havegivenATHIamonopolyoverthecommondescriptiveterms
herbal,herbalteaorTibetanherbaltea,whichare
unprotectableundertrademarklaw.
InresponseATHIclaimedthatthetermbaicaodidnotinvolve
descriptivetermsatall.AccordingtoATHI,thetermbaicaod[id]nt
meananything,39butrather,wasafancifulterm40thatATHIs
37
38
39
40
thatittranslatesfromChineseintoEnglishasherbal.);A153,
atlines1518(Idohavecopiesoftheprintoutsfromboth
GoogleTranslateandfromMicrosoftBingshowingyouthat
theexpressionBaicaoinfactdoestranslateintotheword
herbalorherbs.).
A144,atline12.
A144,atlines1719.
14
presidentinventedonApril8,200941.[C]ertainly,ATHIasserted,
thetermherbalactuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall.42
Afterconductingseveralhearingsontheissue,thedistrictcourt
concludedthatthetermbaicaodidindeedhavemuchbroaderand
separatemeanings.43OnDecember3,2014,thedistrictcourt
thereuponamendedtheoriginalJune25,2014Injunctiontoremove
allprotectionsforbaicao(i.e.,herbal)andbaicaotea(i.e.,
herbaltea).44
However,thedistrictcourtmaintainedthatTibetanbaicaotea
(i.e.,Tibetanherbaltea)stillcouldproperlybetrademarked.Thus,
undertheAmendedInjunction,theNewYorkmerchants,whosell
Tibetanherbalteas,remainbarredfromusingtheexpression
Tibetanherbalteatodescribetheirproducts.45
41
42
43
44
45
2009).
A143A144,atlines7:258:1.
A146,atlines2223.
A178A187.
A185A186at28.
15
FromtheAmendedInjunction,theNewYorkmerchantsfileda
timelyNoticeofAppealonDecember26,2014.NeithertheJune25,
2014OpinionandInjunctionnortheDecember3,2014Amended
OpinionandInjunctionarereported.
STATEMENTOFFACTS
A. FactualBackground
TheAppellantsaretwoteamerchantsinNewYork.The
AppelleeATHIisacompetingteacompanyfromCalifornia.
Around2009or2010,boththeNewYorkmerchantsand
ATHIbegansellingherbalteasconnectedwithTibet.Bothsets
ofbusinessesusedthenameTibetanbaicaoteatomarket
theirproducts.[Emphasesadded.]
ItisundisputedthatthetermbaicaoinTibetanbaicao
teaisthepinyinRomanizationoftwoChinesecharacters:
.ItisalsoundisputedthatthesetwoChinesecharacters
()arethethirdandfourthcharactersintheChinese
16
languageversionofTibetanBaicaoTea()
(emphasisadded).
WhenthetwoChinesecharactersforbaicao()are
copiedandpastedintoreliablelanguagetranslationwebsites,
suchasthosepoweredbyGoogle46orMicrosoft47,the
Chinesecharacterstranslateintoherbs.Inotherwords,the
nameTibetanBaicaoTeatranslatesasTibetanHerbalTea.
ATHIdisputesthetranslationsprovidedbyGoogleand
Microsoft.ATHIpersiststhatcertainlythetermherbal
actuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall.48Instead,
accordingtoATHI,thetermbaicaowasafancifultermthat[its
president]cameupwith49approximatelysixyearsagoon
April8,200950.
46
47
48
49
50
A143A144,atlines7:258:1.
A144,atlines1719.
2009).
17
Byanuncannycoincidence,bothsetsofcompetingtea
companiesinitiallyengagedthesameteapackagingcompany
toboxtheirteas.Theteapackagingcompanyfurnishedthe
sameboxdesigntobothsetsofteamerchants.Thus,for
severalmonthsin2009,apparentlyunbeknownsttoeithersetof
merchants,bothsetsofcompetingmerchantsmarketedtheir
teasusingthesameboxdesign.
InDecember2009,however,theNewYorkmerchants
changedthedesignoftheirpackagingsuchthatitnolonger
resembledtheoriginalbox.Theonlydesignelementsnow
commontotheoriginalboxandthenewpackagingarethe
wordsTibetanBaicaoTeainEnglishandinChinese.
ATHIspackagedesigncanbeseenintheAppendixat
pagesA68A69,andtheNewYorkmerchantspackagedesign
canbestbeseenatA76A81.(TheexhibitreproducedatA76
A81isaclearcolorimageofaPACERfilingthatwasdifficultto
18
read.Intheinterestsofcompleteness,theoriginalPACER
filinghasbeenreproducedatA70A75.)
B. RelevantTrademarkRegistrations
Bothsidesalsosoughttrademarkregistrationfortheir
productnames.In2011,oneoftheNewYorkmerchants(Ms.
Ng)registeredthedesignofherproductpackagingasaNew
YorkStatetrademark,andin2012,shealsoregisteredthename
TibetanBaicaoTeaasafederaltrademark51.
Meanwhile,in2012,ATHIsoughttrademarkregistration
fortheexpressionsBaicao,52TibetanBaicaoTea,53andthe
ChinesetranslationofTibetanBaicaoTea()54.
Additionally,in2013,ATHIobtainedU.S.copyright
registrationforitsproductpackaging.
Thetrademarkapplicationsweredistinguishableinat
leastoneverymaterialrespect.IntheNewYorkmerchants
51
52
53
54
A52.
A59A61.
A57.
A53A55.
19
trademarkapplications,shecandidlydisclosedthattheword
baicaomeantherbal,andthattheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea
translatedintoTibetanherbaltea.Specifically,shedeclared
that[t]henonLatincharactersinthemarktransliterateto
Tibetanbaicaotea,andthismeansTibetanherbalteain
English,andthat[t]heEnglishtranslationofbaicaointhe
markisherbs.55
Incontrast,inATHIstrademarkapplicationsforthe
termsbaicao,Tibetanbaicaotea,andthefiveChinese
charactersforTibetanbaicaotea,ATHIrepeatedlytoldthe
U.S.TrademarkOfficeduringtheexparteapplication
proceedingsthatThewordingBAICAOhasnomeaningina
foreignlanguage.56
55
56
A52.
SeerespectivelyA59(certifyingthatThewordingBAICAO
hasnomeaninginaforeignlanguage.);A57(certifyingthat
Theword(s)baicaoha[ve]nomeaninginaforeign
language.)&A53(certifyingthatThewordingBAICAOhas
nomeaninginaforeignlanguage.).
20
C. ProceedingsBelow
AfterobtainingitstrademarkregistrationforTibetan
BaicaoTea,theNewYorkmerchantdiscoveredlocalsalesoftea
usingtheTibetanBaicaoTeaname.Relyingonthe
TrademarkOfficesapprovalofhertrademarkregistrationas
anindicationthatshenowenjoyedfederalprotectionforthe
mark,onApril22,2013,theNewYorkmerchantsbrought
actionagainstthelocalretailersfortrademarkinfringementin
theSouthernDistrictofNewYork.TheNewYorkmerchants
lateraddedATHIasadefendanttotheactionaswell.
ThreedaysaftertheNewYorkmerchantsinitiatedsuit,
onApril25,2013,ATHIcountersuedbybringingaseparate
actionagainsttheNewYorkmerchants,alsointheSouthern
DistrictofNewYork.ATHIscountersuitwasbased
substantiallyonitsownTibetanBaicaoTearegistration,
21
whichhadbeenprocuredwiththecertificationthatThe
word(s)baicaoha[ve]nomeaninginaforeignlanguage.57
Bothcaseswerethenconsolidated,andATHImovedfor
apreliminaryinjunction.PursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.42(b),the
trialcourtconsolidatedATHIspreliminaryinjunctionmotion
withaseparatetrialontwoissues:(1)whichpartymadefirst
useofitsmarkincommerceintheUnitedStates,and(2)if
ATHIwerethefirstuser,whetherATHIlaterabandonedthe
mark.
AjurytriedthesetwoissuesfromMarch24to27,2014,
andrenderedaverdictinfavorofATHIonbothissues:thejury
foundthatATHIwasthefirstuser,andthatATHIdidnot
abandonthemark.
OnJune25,2014,thedistrictcourtenteredapermanent
injunction.58TheinjunctioninitiallybarredtheNewYork
57
58
A57.
A82A94.
22
merchantsfromusingthetermsbaicao,59baicaotea,60and
Tibetanbaicaotea.61
TheNewYorkmerchantsobjectedthatthetermbaicao
meantherbal,andtheJune25injunctionthereforeforbade
them(asmerchantsofTibetanherbalteas)fromusingthe
wordsherbal,herbalteaandTibetanherbaltea.
OnDecember3,thedistrictcourtthereuponamendedthe
injunction,strikingallprotectionsforthetermsbaicao(i.e.,
herbal)andbaicaotea(i.e.,herbaltea).62However,the
districtcourtleftinplacetheprohibitionagainsttheNewYork
merchantsfromusingtheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea(i.e.,
Tibetanherbaltea).63
59
61
62
63
60
A90A919,13&14.
A9112.
A907.
A178A187.
A185A18628.
23
FromtheDecember3,2014amendedinjunction,theNew
YorkmerchantsfiledatimelyNoticeofAppealonDecember
26,2014.
SUMMARYOFARGUMENT
1.
TheexpressionTibetanbaicaoteawhetherinEnglishor
anyforeignequivalent,64oritsChineseequivalent65is
descriptiveofTibetanherbalteasandthereforecannotbe
trademarked.
2.
ThecatchallprovisionsofParagraphs1and9donotstate
theactstobeenjoinedwiththespecificityrequiredby
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d),andwerenotnarrowlytailoredtotheissues
triedbelow.
3.
Inviewoftheobjectivelyunreasonablerepresentations
concerningthemeaningofthetermbaicao,thedoctrineof
64
65
A186at7.
A187at2.
24
uncleanhandsshouldhaveprecludedATHIfromenjoyingany
injunctiverelief.
STANDARDOFREVIEW
Adistrictcourtsdecisiontograntaninjunctionisreviewedfor
abuseofdiscretionandalsowhetherthegrantwascontraryto
someruleofequity.66Toconstituteanabuseofdiscretion,the
districtcourtsdecisionmusthaverestedonanerroroflawora
clearlyerroneousfindingoffact.67Inassessingwhetherthe
injunctionrestedonanerroroflaw,areviewingcourtgive[s]no
deferencetothedistrictcourtsconclusionsoflaw,whichitreview[s]
denovo,68alongwithmixedquestionsoflawandfact69
66
67
68
69
Register.com,Inc.v.Verio,Inc.,356F.3d393,423(2dCir.2004)
(citingMeccanov.Wanamaker,253U.S.136,141(1920)&Coca
ColaCo.v.TropicanaProducts,Inc.,690F.2d312,315(2dCir.
1982)).
Malletierv.BurlingtonCoatFactoryWarehouseCorp.,426F.3d
532,537(2dCir.2005).
Register.com,356F.3dat423(2dCir.2004).
StarbucksCorp.v.WolfesBoroughCoffee,Inc.,588F.3d97,
105(2dCir.2009)(citingDesignStrategy,Inc.v.Davis,469F.3d
284,300(2dCir.2006)).
25
Applyingtheseprinciplestothecaseatbar,thequestionof
whetherATHIsTibetanbaicaotearegistrationwastoodescriptive
toreceivetrademarkprotectionisrevieweddenovo.Thequestionof
whetherParagraphs1and9satisfiedFed.R.Civ.P.65(d)isalso
revieweddenovo.Thequestionofwhetherthedistrictcourtgranted
theinjunctiondespiteATHIsuncleanhands,isreviewedforabuseof
discretion.
ARGUMENT
I.
TheexpressionTibetanbaicaoteacannotbe
monopolizedasatrademarkforTibetanherbalteas.
A. TheexpressionTibetanbaicaotea
translatesintoTibetanherbaltea.
1. Thedistrictcourtimplicitlyfoundthat
thetermbaicaomeansherbal.
Atthedistrictcourt,theNewYorkmerchants
arguedthatthetermbaicaomeantherbal,and
invited70thedistrictcourttoconfirmthistranslation
70
A142A143,atlines6:257:4(ThetermBaicaoisnecessarily
understoodtobeherbal.Itcanbeverifiedbytypingitinto
26
simplybycopyingandpastingthetwoChinese
charactersforbaicao()intoreliableandfree
internettranslationservicessuchasGoogle
Translate71orMicrosoftsBingTranslator72.
Incontrast,ATHIarguedthatthetermbaicao
doesntmeananything.73Rather,ATHIclaimed
thatbaicaowasafancifultermthat[ATHIs
president]cameupwith74onlysixyearsagoonor
aboutApril8,2009.75[C]ertainlythetermherbal
71
72
73
74
75
GoogleTranslateorMicrosoftssearchengine.Wecanallsee
thatittranslatesfromChineseintoEnglishasherbal.);A153,
atlines1518(Idohavecopiesoftheprintoutsfromboth
GoogleTranslateandfromMicrosoftBingshowingyouthat
theexpressionBaicaoinfactdoestranslateintotheword
herbalorherbs.).
A144,atline12.
A144,atlines1719.
2009).
27
actuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall,ATHI
advisedthedistrictjudge.76
Thedistrictcourtthereuponheldseveral
hearingsinwhichthemeaningofbaicaowas
discussed.Ateachofthesehearings,thedistrict
courtexpresseditsviewthatthetermbaicaodidnot
deserveprotection.AttheJuly22hearing,the
Courtobservedthatthewordbaicaoisbeing
stretchedintoatrademark,whichstandingaloneit
isnot77:
Ofcourse,this[injunction]wasdrafted
by[AppelleeATHI]andsoIhopeyou
willconveymyviewofit,thatits
overreachingalittlebit.AndIwould
notregretitsabsencefromthis
injunction.Itseemstomethemost
glaringofthesituationswheretheword
baicaoisbeingstretchedintoa
trademark,whichstandingaloneitis
not.SoIraisethatasperhapsthemost,
76
77
A143A144,atlines7:258:1(emphasisadded).
A127,atlines45.
28
tomymind,leadingcandidatefor
amendment.
Andthereareotherplaceswherethe
descriptionofthetrademarkshouldbe
mademorepreciseandmorenarrow.
Forexample,innumber12,paragraph
12,itreferstoanyproductnamed,
marked,orlabeledorotherwise
identifiedasTibetanBaicaoTeaor
baicaotea.Itseemstomethattheor
baicaoteacouldwellbedeletedifits
identifiedasTibetanBaicaoTea.Weare
dealingwiththetrademarkasexpressed
inthepleadingsandinthepresentation
ofthecase.Andtheremaybeothers
thatcanbeeasilyclarifiedbyan
identificationsomewhereearlyinthe
injunctionoftheprotectedelementas
TibetanBaicaoTea.Anditseemstome
simplyfromaneutralpositionthat
thosemightbedecentclarificationsto
whichwhatevertheproceduralniceties,
the[NewYorkmerchants]deserve.78
Then,onOctober24,2014,thedistrictcourtagain
declaredthatthetermBaicao,...hasmuch
broaderandseparatemeanings79:
78
79
A146,atlines2223.
29
Itseemstomethatwhatwe
oughttodoiseverywherewithinthe
presentinjunctionthatitsaysBaicao,
thewordBaicaostandingaloneorany
otherabridgmentoranyaddition,such
asorBaicaoTea,thoseadditions
shouldberemoved,andintheirplace
thereshouldbesubstitutedthephrase
TibetanBaicaoTea,nomore,noless.
ThatfollowstextuallyandIthink
correctlyonthisrecordfromthe
amendedcomplaint.Itavoidsthe
problemsarisingoutoftheword
Baicao,whichhasmuchbroaderand
separatemeanings,anditisclearand
definable.80
Finally,onDecember3,2014,theCourt
amendeditsoriginalJune25injunctioninwritingto
removeprotectionforthetermsbaicaoorbaicao
tea.81Achartsummarizingthetranslationissues
inthiscaseappearsonPage80nearthebackofthis
brief.
80
81
A146,atlines1423.
A178A187.
30
Althoughthedistrictcourtruledthatthe
termBaicao,...hasmuchbroaderandseparate
meanings,82thedistrictcourtdidnotexplicitly
articulatewhatbaicaosbroaderandseparate
meaningswere.
However,itisplainfromthedistrictcourts
rationalethatthetermBaicao,...hasmuch
broaderandseparatemeanings,83thatthedistrict
courthadsquarelyrejectedATHIsargumentthat
thetermbaicaodoesntmeananything.84Because
theonlydefinitionofbaicaoprofferedinthis
litigationwasherbsorherbal,werespectfully
submitthatthedistrictcourtsrulingthattheterm
baicaohadbroaderandseparatemeanings85
shouldbeconstruedtosignifyafindingthatthe
82
83
84
85
A146,atlines2223.
A146,atlines2223.
A144,atline12.
A146,atlines2223.
31
termbaicaomeantherbsorherbal,eventhough
thedistrictcourtdidnotexplicitlysayso.86
Thedistrictcourtsacceptanceofbaicaos
translationasherbsorherbalcanbeconfirmed
furtherbythemannerinwhichthedistrictcourt
amendedtheoriginalJuneinjunction.
Therewerefourparagraphsintheoriginal
Juneinjunctionwhichreferencedbaicaoorbaicao
tea.Paragraph10forbadetheNewYork
merchantsfrominfringingATHIssuspendedU.S.
TrademarkApplicationNo.85/939,652,which
claimedexclusiverightstothetermbaicao.87
Paragraphs13and14forbadetheNewYork
merchantsfrommarketingproductsbearingthe
86
87
Cf.BowmanTransp.,Inc.v.ArkansasBestFreightSystem,Inc.,
419U.S.281,286(1974)(areviewingcourtshouldupholda
decisionoflessthanidealclarityiftheagencyspathmay
reasonablybediscerned).
A90at10.
32
Baicaomarkorthetermbaicaorespectively.88
Finally,Paragraph12barredtheNewYork
merchantsfrommarketinganyproductswiththe
termbaicaotea.89
Thedistrictcourtomittedeachofthese
provisionsintheamendedDecemberinjunction90
withoutreplacingthemwithanynewprovisions
regardingbaicaoorbaicaotea.Thus,itisclear
thatthedistrictcourtfoundthetermsbaicaoand
baicaoteatobeundeservingofprotection.In
combinationwiththedistrictcourtsstatementson
therecordregardingtheseterms,thereisample
basisforthisCourttoconcludethatthedistrict
88
90
89
A91at1314.
A90at12.
CompareA9010&1214(paragraphsforbaicaoorbaicao
teafromoriginalJuneinjunction)withA185A18619
(termsfromamendedDecemberinjunction).
33
courthad,infact,construedbaicaotomeanherbs
orherbal.91
2.
ThisCourtcanalsotakejudicialnoticefrom
popularliteratureandfreeinternettranslatorsthat
thetermbaicaomeansherbal.
Evenifthedistrictcourtspronouncements
andactionswerenotsufficientlyclearthattheterm
baicaomeansherbal,thisCourtindependentlycan
takejudicialnoticeofbaicaosundisputable
translationsimplybyusingfreeinternettranslation
servicesmaintainedbyeitherGoogle92or
Microsoft93.
FederalRuleofEvidence201(b)(2)entitlesthis
Courttotakejudicialnoticeoffactsthatcanbe
accuratelyandreadilydeterminedfromsources
91
92
93
Cf.BowmanTransp.,419U.S.at286(areviewingcourtshould
upholdadecisionoflessthanidealclarityiftheagencyspath
mayreasonablybediscerned).
34
whoseaccuracycannotreasonablybequestioned,
andthisCourthaspreviouslytakenjudicialnotice
ofsuchmatteronotherappeals.94
Itisundisputedthatthetermbaicaoisthe
pinyinRomanizationofthethirdandfourthChinese
charactersinthefivecharacterChineselanguage
mark.ThefivecharacterChineselanguagemarkis
shownherewiththetwoChinesecharactersfor
baicaounderlined:.Whenthetwo
Chinesecharactersforthetermbaicao(i.e.,)
arecopiedandpastedintoGoogleTranslate95,the
termtranslatesasherbs.Thesameistrueonthe
94
95
E.g.,Rothmanv.Gregor,220F.3d81,9192(2dCir.2000)
(takingjudicialnoticeofproceedingsinothercourts);Hirschv.
ArthurAndersen&Co.,72F.3d1085,1095(2dCir.1995)(we
maytakejudicialnoticethatbothGoogelandSistipledguilty
tomultiplefeloniesarisingfromtheirinvolvementinColonials
activities).
35
MicrosoftBingTranslator96:whenthesametwo
ChinesecharactersareinputtedintoMicrosofts
translator,thetermalsotranslatesasherbs.
Thetranslationofthetermbaicaotomean
herbalisadditionallyconfirmedbycommon
usage.Indeed,arecentbookbyNewYorkTimes
bestsellingphysicianDr.ZhiGangShadescribed
thetermbaicaoasanancientandfamous
termfromChinesefolklore:
Thereisafamousancientstatement:
Shennongchangbaicao....Chang
meanstasteoreat.Baimeansone
hundred;itrepresentsalloreveryin
Chinese.Caomeansherbs.Shen
Nong(saintfarmer)isthefatherof
Chineseagriculture.Fivethousand
yearsago,hetastedhundredsofherbs
toevaluatetheirhealingcharacteristics.
Hewroteanencyclopediaofhis
findings,whichincludesnotonlyherbs,
plantsandflowers,butalsoallkindsof
mineralsandanimalparts....Tothis
96
36
day,ShenNonghasbeenreveredasthe
founderoftheChineseherbssystem.97
Inviewoftheconsistenttranslationsfrom
multiplesourceswhoseaccuracycannot
reasonablybequestioned,98theNewYork
merchantsrespectfullyrequestthat,ifthisCourt
foundthedistrictcourtspronouncementstobe
insufficientlyclearonthemeaningoftheterm
baicao,thisCourtshouldtakejudicialnoticeofthe
factthatthetermbaicaomeansherbal.
3.
Inrelatedproceedings,theU.S.Patent&
TrademarkOfficehasdeterminedthattheterm
baicaomeansherbal.
IntheparallelUSPTOproceedingscitedby
thedistrictcourtinitsoriginalJune2014
injunction,99theUSPTOalsodeterminedthatthe
97
98
99
SHA,TAOIIat21.
FED.R.EVID.201(b)(2).
A90at9&10;seealsoStatementofRelatedCases,supra.
37
termbaicaomeansherbalandthattheexpression
TibetanBaicaoTeameansTibetanHerbalTea.
Forinstance,inATHIsapplicationNo.
85/939,652100fortrademarkregistrationoftheterm
baicao,theU.S.TrademarkOfficeissuedaJul.7,
2013,OfficeActionrefusingATHIsapplicationfor
trademarkregistrationofthetermbaicao.Inits
denial,theTrademarkOfficesquarelyrejected
ATHIsrepresentationsthatthetermbaicaohadno
meaning:
Applicantseekstoregistertheproposed
markBAICAO.Theregisteredmark
consistingofthewordingTIBETAN
BAICAOTEAandfiveChinesecharacters
thattransliteratetoTibetanBaiCaoTea,
andthismeansTibetanHerbalTeain
English.101
100
101
SeeA90at10.
OfficeActionfromU.S.TrademarkExaminerCurtisFrench,
U.S.TrademarkApplicationSerialNo.85/939,652
cId=OOA20130717223514#docIndex=3&page=1>(Jul.17,2013).
38
TheTrademarkOfficefurtherobservedthatthe
termbaicaobearsalogicalrelationshiptothe
goods/servicesprovidedbytheapplicant....[and]
appearstomeanherbalandiscommonlyusedin
theindustrytodescribeatypeofteaoriginating
fromTibet:
Theapplicantappliedtoregisterthemark
BAICAO.Theproposedmarkmerely
correspondstowordingwhichisnot
arbitrary,butbearsalogicalrelationshipto
thegoods/servicesprovidedbythe
applicant.ThetermBAICAOappearsto
meanherbalandiscommonlyusedinthe
industrytodescribeatypeoftea
originatingfromTibet.Pleaseseeattached
articlesillustratingthepopularityandwide
useofthewordingBaicaoorherbalteato
describeteasfromTibet.
ThetermBAICAOismerelydescriptive
oftheapplicantsgoods/services,namely,
herbalteacalledBaicaooriginatingfrom
Tibet.Themarkimmediatelynamesthe
exactnatureofthegoods/servicesanddoes
nothingelse.Accordingly,themarkis
refusedregistrationonthePrincipal
Register....
39
Onthesameday,theU.S.TrademarkOffice
issuedananalogousrefusaltoregisterATHIs
applicationtotrademarkthefiveChinesecharacters
makingupTibetanBaicaoTea(i.e.,
).Onceagain,despiteATHIs
representationsthatthetermbaicaohadno
meaning,theTrademarkOfficefoundthatthefive
ChinesecharacterstranslatedfromChineseinto
EnglishasTibetanHerbalTea:
Applicantseekstoregistertheproposed
markconsistingofFiveChinesecharacters
thattransliteratetoTibetanBaiCaoTea.
Theregisteredmarkconsistingofthe
wordingTIBETANBAICAOTEAandfive
Chinesecharactersthattransliterateto
TibetanBaiCaoTea,andthismeans
TibetanHerbalTeainEnglish.102
102
OfficeActionfromU.S.TrademarkExaminerCurtisFrench,
U.S.TrademarkApplicationSerialNo.85/894,301
<http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85894301&d
ocId=OOA20130717223752#docIndex=3&page=1>(Jul.17,2013)
40
Additionally,citingonlinesources,the
TrademarkOfficefurthernotedthattheexpression
TibetanBaicaoTeawascommonlyusedinthe
industrytodescribeatypeofteaoriginatingfrom
Tibet:
Theproposedmarkmerelycorresponds
towordingwhichisnotarbitrary,but
bearsalogicalrelationshiptothe
goods/servicesprovidedbytheapplicant.
ThetermTibetanBaiCaoTeaiscommonly
usedintheindustrytodescribeatypeof
teaoriginatingfromTibet.[Emphasis
added.]
TheTrademarkOfficethereforeconcludedthatthe
expressionTibetanBaicaoTeawastoo
descriptiveforregistrationonthePrincipal
Register:
ThewordingcomprisedoffiveChinese
charactersthattransliteratetoTibetan
BaiCaoTeaismerelydescriptiveofthe
applicantsgoods/services,namely,
herbalteafromTibetororiginatingin
Tibet.Themarkimmediatelynamesthe
exactnatureofthegoods/servicesand
41
doesnothingelse.Accordingly,themark
isrefusedregistrationonthePrincipal
Register.[Emphasisadded.]
TheopinionsoftheU.S.TrademarkOffice
regardingtheregistrabilityoftermsrelatedtobaicao
nonethelessshouldbegivensubstantialpersuasive
weightinviewoftheOfficesexclusiveagency
mandatetoexaminetheregistrabilityofall
proposedtrademarksintheUnitedStates.
Here,theU.S.TrademarkOfficerepeatedly
concludedthatthetermbaicaomeantherbal,and
refusedtoregisterAppelleeATHIsbaicaorelated
marks.Theagencysconsideredopinionsshould
thusbeaccordedappropriateweightinthisCourts
considerationofthemeaningofthetermbaicao.
4.
EvenATHIimplicitlyhadacknowledged
thatthetermbaicaomeansherbal.
Finally,inatellingstrategicslipinthedistrict
courtproceedingsbelow,evenATHIacknowledged
42
thatthetermbaicaomeansherbal.103Afterthe
districtcourtissueditsoriginalJuneorderenjoining
theNewYorkmerchantsfromusingtheexpression
Tibetanbaicaotea,theNewYorkmerchants
rebrandedtheirproductsasTibetanherbaltea.
ATHIthencomplainedtothedistrictcourt
thattheNewYorkmerchantsuseofthewords
Tibetanherbalteastillranafoulofthedistrict
courtsinjunctionagainstTibetanbaicaotea:
THECOURT:Isshesellingtheproductinthe
meantime?Yousaytoa
diminishingextent.
MR.LEE: Shehaschangedthepackaging
thatIknowofandsellingthis.
THECOURT:Isee,theNewYellowTibetan
HerbalTea.
MR.LEE: Yes.ButinsideinEnglishitsays
TibetanHerbalTea.Shehasstill
usedthesamefontassheusedfor
theTibetanBaicaoTea,butthey
didchangetheBaicaowordinto
acoupleofdifferentcharacters
calledxenbao,whichtomeisa
103
A168,atlines414.
43
madeuptermthatshemadeup
forit.ButtheEnglishtermisstill
TibetanHerbalTea.104
Inotherwords,ATHIcomplainedthat
packaginglabeledTibetanHerbalTeaviolated
theinjunctionagainstTibetanBaicaoTea.
However,thissyllogismisonlytrueifTibetan
baicaoteameantTibetanherbaltea,whichin
turn,wouldnecessarilymeanthattheexpression
baicaomeantherbal.Otherwise,ATHIs
argumentthatpackagingmarkedTibetanherbal
teaviolatedtheinjunctiononTibetanbaicao
teawouldmakenologicalsense.
ATHIsslipisarevealingone:ATHIsaysthat
baicaomeansherbalwhenattemptingto
expandthereachoftheinjunction,butthentellsthe
104
A168,atlines414(emphasesadded).
44
courtthatbaicaodoesntmeananything105when
thedescriptivenessofthebaicaorelatedmarkis
raised.ATHIcannothaveitbothways:eitherbaicao
meansherbal,orbaicaodoesntmean
anything.106ATHIcannotshiftthetranslationof
thetermbaicaofromonemeaningtoitsdiametric
oppositedependingontheproceduralposturein
whichthetermisbeingconsidered.
ATHIssliprevealedtheundeniable
translationofbaicaoasherbal,andthis
translationshouldbemaintainedconsistently
throughouteveryaspectofthiscase.
B. TheadjectiveTibetancannotbetrademarkedhere
becauseitisdescriptiveoftheTibetanherbalteasat
issue.
SincetheSupremeCourts1872decisioninCanal
Co.v.Clark,ithasbeenwellsettledinAmerican
105
106
A144,atline12.
A144,atline12.
45
jurisprudencethattrademarkprotectionisunavailablefor
geographicalnamesbecausegeographicnamessignify
onlytheplaceofproduction,not[]theproducer,and[if]
they[(i.e.,geographicterms)could]beappropriated
exclusively,theappropriationwouldresultin
mischievousmonopolies:
[T]hesamereasonswhichforbidtheexclusive
appropriationofgenericnamesorofthosemerely
descriptive...applywithequalforcetothe
appropriationofgeographicalnames,designating
districtsofcountry....Theypointonlyattheplace
ofproduction,nottotheproducer,andcouldthey
beappropriatedexclusively,theappropriation
wouldresultinmischievousmonopolies.[If]such
phrases,asPennsylvaniawheat,Kentuckyhemp,
Virginiatobacco,orSeaIslandcotton,[could]be
protectedastrademarks;[if]anyone[could]
preventallothersfromusingthem,orfromselling
articlesproducedinthedistrictstheydescribe
underthoseappellations,itwouldgreatly
embarrasstrade,andsecureexclusiverightsto
individualsinthatwhichisthecommonrightof
many....Nothingismorecommonthanthata
manufacturersendshisproductstomarket,
designatingthembythenameoftheplacewhere
theyweremade.107
107
CanalCo.v.Clark,80U.S.(13Wall.)311,32425(1872).
46
TheveryprinciplesarticulatedinCanalCo.arealso
codifiedfromtheTrademarkActatseveralplacesinthe
UnitedStatesCode.Forinstance,Section1052(c)(2)of
Title15forbidstheregistrationoftrademarkswhichis
primarilygeographicallydescriptiveoftheapplicants
goods:
15U.S.C.1052(e)(2)
Notrademarkbywhichthegoodsofthe
applicantmaybedistinguishedfromthe
goodsofothersshallberefusedregistration
ontheprincipalregisteronaccountofits
natureunlessit
...
(e)Consistsofamarkwhich...(2)when
usedonorinconnectionwiththegoodsofthe
applicantisprimarilygeographically
descriptiveofthem.[Emphasisadded]
AdifferentpartoftheTrademarkAct,codifiedat15
U.S.C.1115(b)(4),furtherexemptsfromliabilitytheuse
ofexpressionsusedtodescribethegoodsorservices...
ortheirgeographicorigin:
47
[T]herighttousetheregisteredmarkshall
be...subjecttothefollowingdefensesor
defects:
....
(4) Thattheuseofthename,term,or
devicechargedtobeaninfringementisause,
otherwisethanasamark,ofthepartys
individualnameinhisownbusiness,orofthe
individualnameofanyoneinprivitywith
suchparty,orofatermordevicewhichis
descriptiveofandusedfairlyandingood
faithonlytodescribethegoodsorservicesof
suchparty,ortheirgeographicorigin.
[Emphasisadded.]
Incommonusage,thewordTibetanisan
adjectiveunderstoodtomeanoforrelatingtoTibet,its
inhabitants,ortheirlanguage.108Thus,theterm
Tibetanisundeniablyageographicmodifier.The
recordshowsthatboththeNewYorkmerchantsand
ATHIusedthetermTibetaninTibetanBaicaoTeato
signifyageographicconnectionbetweentheirrespective
teasandTibet.
108
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tibetan?s=t(definition
ofTibetan)(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).
48
Attrial,oneoftheNewYorkmerchantstestified
thatherteablendwasdevelopedbyastudentwhowas
learningtheTibetanmedicine.109ATHItestifiedthatits
competingteablendwas[m]adeinTibet[].110Thus,
boththeAppellantandtheAppelleeusedtheterm
TibetantocommunicatetheconnectionbetweenTibet
andtheirrespectiveteas.
ItisthereforeplainthattheadjectiveTibetan
usedtodescribethepartiesherbal/baicaoteaisis
primarilygeographicallydescriptiveof111therespective
teasmarketedbytheAppellantsandtheAppellee.Itis
equallyplainthatthetermTibetaninTibetanbaicao
teaalsodescribe[s]thegoodsorservices[]geographic
origin.112
109
110
111
112
A67,atlines711.
A65,atlines16.
15U.S.C.1052(e)(2).
15U.S.C.1115(b)(4).
49
Assuch,bothCanalCo.andtheTrademarkAct
precludeATHIfrompreventingcompetingmerchantsof
TibetanherbalteasfromusingtheexpressionTibetan
baicaoteaoranyforeignlanguageequivalent,suchas
TibetanherbalteaortheChinesecharactersforTibetan
herbal/baicaotea.
C. Thefreedomtousegeographictermsasdescriptive
productnamesisespeciallyimportantforteas.
Theavailabilityofgeographicnamesasdescriptive
adjectivesisespeciallyimportantfortea,where
geographictermsareuniversallyrecognizedasshorthand
forconveyingthepropertiesofateatoeveryday
consumers.Anyonewhohasstrolledthrougha
supermarketwouldlikelyhaveencounteredboxesof
Darjeeling,Ceylon,Assam,orevenPuerhteas;theseteas
arenamedfortheirplacesofgeographicorigin,
respectively,theIndiandistrictofDarjeelinginWest
Bengal,theformerterritoryofBritishCeyloninthe
50
nationofSriLanka,theIndianstateofAssam,andthe
ChinesecityofPuerhinYunnanProvince.113
Inthecontextofherbalteaswithperceived
medicinalproperties,thegeographicnameassociated
withtheteaisparticularlycritical.Forinstance,ginseng
teasarenamedbyregion(American,Asian,
Chinese,Japanese,SiberianandWisconsin)to
denotemedicinalpropertiesandcultivationstatus:
Wildginsengcommandsthehighestprice,
andislimitedtotheplantsnativerange.For
Americanginseng(Panaxquinquefolius),that
basicallymeansmountainseastofthe
MississippiRiver....WildAsianginseng
(Panaxginseng)isfoundonlyinnortheastern
China,KoreaandpartsofSiberia.
Otherginsengrelativesare:Panaxnotoginseng,
foundinChinaassanchiortienchiginseng;
Panaxjaponicum,orJapaneseginsengand
foundonlyinJapan....Eleutherococcus
senticsus,sometimescalledSiberianginseng,
isnottrueginseng,butarelativeinthesame
plantfamily...andlabelingrulesnow
113
HELENSABIERI,TEA,AGLOBALHISTORY1617(ReaktionBooks
2010).
51
prohibititfrombeingmarketedunderthe
nameginseng.
Cultivatedginsengisthefarmgrownversion
...Forgenerationsitwascultivatedin
Wisconsin.114
Mistakingthegeographicoriginofonetypeof
ginsengforanothercould,infact,producetheopposite
physiologicaleffectthatonemightwishtoelicit:Asian
ginsengandAmericanginsengadapteddifferentlyto
theirrespectivehomes,withsubtlevariationsin
chemistry...theAsianastimulant,theAmericana
relaxant...115
Inthecaseatbar,bothsetsofteamakerstestifiedto
acommonbeliefthatherbalmedicinalteasfromTibet
exhibitedantiallergicandantiinflammatoryproperties.
ATHIspresidenttestifiedthatherTibetanherbaltea
help[s]torelievethesinusandallergyandcan
114
115
DAVIDA.TAYLOR,GINSENG,THEDIVINEROOT9(Algonquin
2006)[hereinafterTAYLOR,GINSENG].
TAYLOR,GINSENGat13(emphasisadded).
52
functionasadetoxificationagent[and]releasetheheat
inthebody:
[T]histeacanrelievetiredness,functionasa
detoxificationagent.Itcanreleasetheheatin
thebody.Itisalsoveryspecialifyoudrink
morewaterwithit,itcancleanseupyour
intestin[]eandyourbowel.
...
...[T]hisparticularteacanenhance
immunizationofthebodyandhencehelpto
relievethesinusandallergy.116
Similarly,theNewYorkmerchanttestifiedthat
Tibetanbaicaoteawasgoodfor...theallergy,and
couldalsotreatinflammatoryconditionssuchasgoutand
bonepain:
OnestudentwhowaslearningtheTibetan
medicine....saiditwasgoodforthegate
[sic:gout]andthebonepain,andalsoforthe
allergy.117
Regardlessofwhetherthereisanyclinicalmeritto
thesebeliefs,itisatleastclearthatmanypeople
116
117
A63A64,atlines32:1733:1.
A67,atlines11&2021.
53
(includingthepartiestothislitigation)perceiveTibetan
herbalteatohavespecificmedicinalqualities.Inthe
samewaythatconsumersusethetermsDarjeelingor
Ceylontoconnoteflavor,orthetermsAmerican
ginsengorChineseginsengtoconnotemedicinal
effectbothpartiesusedthetermTibetanasshorthand
toconveythehealthbenefitsoftheirparticularherbal
teas.
Theimportanceofgeographictermsindescribing
teasillustratesthewisdombehindtherulesarticulatedby
theTrademarkActandtheSupremeCourtsCanalCo.
decisionagainstallowinggeographictermstobe
monopolized.
Here,theNewYorkmerchantshavefollowedthe
standardconventionofdescribingtheirTibetanherbaltea
asTibetanherbal/baicaotea,andtheiruseofthis
54
descriptivetermtomarketTibetanherbalteasshouldnot
bedeniedundertrademarklaw.
II. ThecatchallprovisionsofParagraphs1and9donot
statetheactsenjoinedwiththespecificityrequiredby
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d).
Paragraphs1and9oftheAmendedInjunctionshouldbe
vacatedbecausetheyarenotsufficientlyspecificunder
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d).Foreaseofconsideration,weaddress
Paragraph9first.
A. TheactsthatParagraph9seekstoenjoin
tailoredtotheissuestriedbelow.
Initsentirely,Paragraph9reads:
Makinganystatementorrepresentation
whatsoever,orusinganyfalsedesignationof
originorfalsedescription,orperformingany
act,whichmayorislikelytoleadthetradeor
public,orindividualmembersthereof,to
believethatanyproductsmanufactured,
imported,distributed,orsoldbyDefendants
areinanymannerassociatedorconnected
withAmericanTibetHealthInstitute,Inc.,or
aresold,manufactured,licensed,sponsored,
approvedorauthorizedbyATHI.
55
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d)requiresallinjunctionstostate
itstermsspecifically118anddescribeinreasonable
detailandnotbyreferringtothecomplaintorother
documenttheactoractsrestrainedorrequired119:
[T]hespecificityprovisionsofRule65(d)are
nomeretechnicalrequirements.TheRulewas
designedtopreventuncertaintyand
confusiononthepartofthosefacedwith
injunctiveorders,andtoavoidthepossible
foundingofacontemptcitationonadecree
toovaguetobeunderstood.Sincean
injunctiveorderprohibitsconductunder
threatofjudicialpunishment,basicfairness
requiresthatthoseenjoinedreceiveexplicit
noticeofpreciselywhatconductis
outlawed.120
Rule65(d)issatisfiedonlyiftheenjoinedparty
canascertainfromthefourcornersoftheorderprecisely
whatactsareforbiddenorrequired.Rule65(d)issaidto
servetwogeneralpurposes:topreventuncertaintyand
118
119
120
FED.R.CIV.P.65(d)(1)(B).
FED.R.CIV.P.65(d)(1)(C).
Schmidtv.Lessard,414U.S.473,476(1974).
56
confusiononthepartofthosetowhomtheinjunctionis
directed,andtoensurethattheappellatecourtknows
preciselywhatitisreviewing.121
WithinthemeaningofRule65(d),[a]ninjunction
isoverbroadwhenitseekstorestrainthedefendants
fromengaginginlegalconduct,orfromengagingin
illegalconductthatwasnotfairlythesubjectoflitigation.
...[A]ninjunctionisoverbroadifitresultsina
likelihoodofunwarrantedcontemptproceedingsforacts
unlikeorunrelatedtothoseoriginallyjudged
unlawful[.]122
Paragraph9failstosatisfytherequirementsofRule
65(d)inatleastthreeindependentrespects.First,
Paragraph9scoreproscriptionprecludingAppellants
121
122
144(2dCir.2011)(collectingcases)(citationsomitted).
MickalisPawnShop,645F.3dat145(2dCir.2011)(quoting
Linebackv.SpurlinoMaterials,LLC,546F.3d491,504(7thCir.
2008)).
57
usinganyfalsedesignationoforiginorfalsedescription
...whichmayorislikelytoleadthetradeorpublic...to
believethatanyproducts...by[Appell]antsare...
associatedorconnectedwithAppelleewaslifted
almostverbatimfromtheTrademarkAct.
Assuch,Paragraph9isnothingmorethanabare
commandtoobeythetrademarklaw.Thelanguageof
Paragraph9isacatchallprovisioncopiedfromthe
generalizedlanguageof15U.S.C.1125(a)(1).The
operativelanguageofParagraph9usinganyfalse
designationoforiginorfalsedescription...whichmay
orislikelytoleadthetradeorpublic...tobelievethat
anyproducts...byDefendantsare...associatedor
connectedwithAppelleeisvirtuallyidenticaltothe
languagefromthestatuteus[ing]anyfalsedesignation
oforigin,false...description...which...islikelyto
58
causeconfusion,or...mistake...astotheaffiliation,
connection,orassociation.
AsthisCourthasexplained,aninjunctionmustbe
morespecificthanasimplecommandthatthedefendant
obeythelaw.123ParaphrasingthelanguageofSection
1125(a)(1)andinsertingtheAppelleesnameintothe
paraphrasedstatutedoespreciselywhatFed.R.Civ.P.
65(d)andthisCourtsprecedentsprohibit,andthis
Paragraphthereforeshouldbevacated.
Second,Paragraph9sscopecoveringallproducts
sold,manufactured,licensed,sponsored,approvedor
authorizedby[theAppellee],124impermissiblyreaches
farbeyondthesingleherbalteaproductthatwaslitigated
123
124
PeregrineMyanmarLtd.v.Segal,89F.3d41,51(2dCir.1996).
A186at9.
59
belowtoencompassproductsnotfairlythesubjectof
litigation.125
Ithasbeentheconsistentandfirmteachingofthis
Courtthatinjunctivereliefshouldbenarrowlytailored
tofitspecificlegalviolations,andthatadistrictcourt
mustmouldeachdecreetothenecessitiesofthe
particularcase.126
TheunderlyinglitigationrelatessolelytoTibetan
herbalteas.However,Paragraph9coversmuchmore
thanjusttheTibetanherbalteasthatwerethesubjectof
theunderlyinglitigationParagraph9precludesthe
Appellantfrommarketinganythingwhichmightbe
confusedwithanyproductssold,manufactured,
licensed,sponsored,approvedorauthorizedby[the
125
126
145(2dCir.2011)(quotingLineback,546F.3dat504(7thCir.
2008)).
MickalisPawnShop,645F.3dat144(2dCir.2011)(collecting
cases)(citationsomitted).
60
Appellee],includingthehundredsoreventhousandsof
theAppelleesproductswhichwerenotfairlythe
subjectoflitigation.127
Third,andfinally,Paragraph9isinadequately
specificbecauseitconditionscomplianceuponhowother
personsmightreacttotheNewYorkmerchantsactions.
TheinjunctionprohibitstheNewYorkmerchantsfrom
performinganyactswhichmayorislikelytolead
otherstobelievethattheNewYorkmerchantsgoodsare
somehowconnectedwithATHI.
Thereisinherentuncertaintyinpegging
compliancetohowsomeoneelsemayorislikelyto
reactinthefuture.Thus,forinstance,thisCourthasheld
thatanorderenjoiningalitigantfromtryingto
intimidateplaintiffsofficers,directors,employeesand
agentsintheexerciseoftheirdutieswiththreatsof
127
Lineback,546F.3dat504(7thCir.2008)).
61
spuriouslawsuits128didnotcomportwithRule65(d)
becauseitwillbeimpossiblefor[thelitigant]anon
lawyertoknowinadvancewhichthreatenedlawsuits
arespuriousandwhicharenot129.
Similarly,anordertotakeallotherreasonably
needfulactionstofacilitateplaintiffsresumptionoftheir
managementauthorityin[twobusinesses]wasalsoheld
toviolateRule65(d)becausetherewasnowayforthe
litiganttoknowwhatallotherreasonablyneedful
actionsmean[t]130:
ThereissimplynowayforSegaltoknow
whatallotherreasonablyneedfulactions
means.Thephraseisundefined.Underthis
paragraph,Segalriskscontemptifsheguesses
wrongaboutwhatconstitutesareasonably
needfulaction,orifshefailstoaccedeto
whateverdemandstheplaintiffsmaymake
uponherinthefuturetofacilitatethe
exerciseoftheirmanagementauthority.As
plaintiffscounseladmittedatoralargument,
128
129
130
PeregrineMyanmarLtd.v.Segal,89F.3d41,49(2dCir.1996).
PeregrineMyanmar,89F.3dat51(2dCir.1996).
62
thisparagraphisnothingmorethanacatch
all.Theparagraphmustthereforebevacated
asinconsistentwithRule65(d).131
Asacatchallprovision,Paragraph9wasplainlynot
mould[ed]...tothenecessitiesofth[is]particular
case,132andtheParagraphshouldthusbevacated.
B. TheactsthatParagraph1seekstoenjoin
tailoredtotheissuestriedbelow.
Paragraph1alsodoesnotmeetthespecificity
standardsofFed.R.Civ.P.65(d)insofarasParagraph1
alsoattemptstoaddressmattersthatwerenotfairlythe
subjectoflitigationbelow.133
Paragraph1prohibitstheNewYorkmerchants
fromclaim[ing]ownershipofordisparag[ing]ATHIs
131
132
133
MickalisPawnShop,645F.3dat144(2dCir.2011)(collecting
cases)(citationsomitted).
63
productbrandingorpackagingbyreferringtoitasold,
former,orequivalent.134
However,theinjunctionhadnotbeenheardonthe
questionofATHIsproductbrandingorpackaging,135
whichParagraph1seekstoremedy.Asthedistrictcourt
pointedout,thecoretrademarkissueinthecaserevolved
aroundthewordsTibetanbaicaoteaandnotthe
picturesfromtheproductbrandingorpackaging:
WhatisalwaysatissueisTibetanBaicao
Tea....Ithinkthecoretrademarkinthe
senseofwhatisatrademarkarethewords,
notthepictures.136
Indeed,thedistrictcourthadrefusedATHIsrequeststo
insertotherprovisionsconcerningproductbrandingor
packaging137becausetheissueofthepicturedesignson
thepackagingwasaseparate[]issue,anditwasonly
134
135
136
137
A185at1.
A185at1.
A185at1.
64
theTibetanbaicaoteaphrasewhichATHIallegedhad
beenabusedandwhichwassoughttobeprotected138:
Iwasleftwiththeimpressionthatthewords
TibetanBaicaoTeacouldbeusedseparately
fromanyhorse,scroll,orwhatever....And
thereforethey[thehorseandscrollproduct
designsandpackaging]werentanecessary
partoftheprotectableunit.They[thehorse
andscrollproductbrandingandpackaging]
mightcomeandtheymightgo,butitwasthe
phraseTibetanBaicaoTeawhichhadbeen
abusedandwhichwassoughttobeprotected,
andthattheywerelessimportant.139
Byreachingouttoaddressproductbrandingor
packaging,140eventhoughtheissueslitigated[we]re
thewords[Tibetanbaicaotea]141andnotthe
pictures142thatcomprisedproductpackagingand
branding,Paragraph1impermissiblyregulatesmatters
138
140
141
142
139
A158,atlines78.
A158,atlines19.
A185at1.
A160,atlines1016.
65
thatwerenotfairlythesubjectoflitigation,143andthe
Paragraphshouldthereforebevacated.
III. EveniftheexpressionTibetanbaicaoteacouldbe
trademarked,thedistrictcourtshouldhavedenied
injunctivereliefonthedoctrineofuncleanhands.
Evenassuming,arguendo,thatTibetanBaicaoTeawere
avalidtrademark,thetrialcourtshouldstillhavedeniedATHI
aninjunctionunderthedoctrineofuncleanhands.The
positiontakenbyATHIwithrespecttothemeaningofbaicao
wassoobjectivelyunreasonablethatATHIshouldnothave
beenentitledtoenjoythebenefitsofequitablerelief.
ItisafoundationaltenetofAngloAmerican
jurisprudencethatequitywillevadethegraspofalitigantwho
reachesforinjunctivereliefwithuncleanhands.Acourt
thereforeshoulddenyinjunctivereliefwherethepartyseeking
theinjunctionhasnotacquitteditselfwiththemeasureof
143
66
equitythatpartyseeks.144Inthecaseatbar,ATHIsarguments
concerningthelackofmeaningofthetermbaicaowereso
pervasiveandobjectivelyunreasonablethatATHIis
undeservingofanyequitablerelief.
Asnotedabove,Googlesfreeinternettranslatorand
MicrosoftsfreeBingtranslatorbothagreedthattheterm
baicaomeansherbs.Thisinformationwasandremainsfreely
andreadilyavailabletoanyonewithinternetaccess.Moreover,
asrecountedinthepopularbookbybestsellingphysicianDr.
Sha,145thetermbaicaohasbeenusedforthousandsofyears.
Yetdespitetheundeniabletranslationsofbaicaotomean
herbsorherbal,inapplyingfortrademarkregistrationof
thebaicaomarksinthislitigation,ATHIneverdisclosedbaicaos
144
145
RosemontEnterprises,Inc.v.RandomHouse,Inc.,366F.2d
303,313(2dCir.1966)(Lumbard,C.J.,&Hays,J.,concurring)
(Theplaintiffsconductinthistransactionwasnotconsistent
withtheequityitseeks;itcameintocourtwithuncleanhands.
This,ofitself,wassufficientreasonwhythedistrictcourt
shouldnothavegrantedthepreliminaryinjunction.).
SHA,TAOIIat21.
67
meaningtotheTrademarkOffice.Tothecontrary,ATHI
activelydeniedthatbaicaohadanymeaningatall.
Initsapplicationtoregisterthetermbaicao,ATHI
assuredtheU.S.TrademarkOfficethat[t]heword[]BAICAO
hasnomeaninginaforeignlanguage.146ATHIrepeatedthe
sameassurancestotheU.S.trademarkOfficeinordertowin
registrationforTibetanBaicaoTea,147andagaininapplying
fortheChinesecharacterversionofTibetanBaicaoTea148.
EvenwhenconfrontedwiththeGoogleandMicrosoft
translations,ATHIobduratelyinsistedthat[C]ertainlytheterm
herbalactuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall.149ATHI
thenproceededtoembellishthestatementsithadmadeinthe
TrademarkOfficebyclaimingthatbaicaoafamous[and]
ancient150termfromthedawnofChinesecivilizationwas,in
146
148
149
150
147
A59.
A57.
A53.
SHA,TAOIIat21.
68
truth,afancifultermthat[ATHIspresident]cameupwith151
onlysixyearsagoonoraboutApril8,2009.152
Throughitsabsurdpositionontheoriginsoftheterm
baicao,ATHIinitiallypersuadedthedistrictcourttoissuean
injunctionforbiddingtheNewYorkherbalteamerchantsfrom
usingthetermsbaicao(herbal)153andbaicaotea(herbal
tea)154.Thiswrongfulinjunctionremainedinforceagainstthe
NewYorkmerchantsforalmostsixmonths,duringwhich
ATHIaggressivelyresistedamendmentoftheinjunction.155
ATHIsjawdroppingaccountofhowanancientChinese
phrasehad,infact,beeninventedbyitspresidentonlysix
yearsago156,coupledwithATHIsmaintenanceofaninjunction
151
152
153
155
156
154
A144,atlines1719.
2009).
A90A91at10&1314.
A90at12.
E.g.,A145,atlines89.
2009).
69
thatATHIknewtobeimpermissiblyoverbroad,makesATHI
anunsuitablebeneficiaryforequitablerelief.
Theuncleanhandsissueinthiscaseisnotsimplyabout
retrospectivelypunishingATHIforitspastactions.The
uncleanhandsdoctrinealsoinherentlyaddressestheconcernof
whether,prospectively,alitigantthattriessoaggressivelyto
seizetrademarkrightsoverauniversallyknownexpression
couldbeentrustedtowieldresponsiblythepotentcoercive
powerofafederalinjunction.Wherealitiganthasso
vexatiouslymaintainedanobjectivelyuntenablepositionin
litigation,thatlitigantoughtnotbeentitledtoenjoythebenefits
ofinjunctiverelief,andthetrialcourtshouldthereforehave
withheldinjunctivereliefaltogetherunderthedoctrineof
uncleanhands.
Thecaseforemployingthedoctrineofuncleanhandsto
barATHIfromallinjunctivereliefonmattersconsideredbelow
70
isparticularlystronghereifthisCourtfindstheexpression
TibetanBaicaoTeatobetoodescriptivetowarrantprotection.
SevenoutofthenineparagraphsintheAmended
InjunctionrelatespecificallytotheTibetanBaicaoTeamark
(Paragraphs2through8).AndasarguedinPartIIabove,the
remainingtwoparagraphs(Paragraphs1and9)arecatchall
provisions,whichdonotaddressanyspecifictrademarkor
violation.
IfthistribunalagreesthatTibetanBaicaoTeaistoo
descriptivetowarrantprotection,thenParagraphs2through8
wouldneedtobecurtailedorvacated.Howeverwithoutthese
sevencoreparagraphs,theAmendedInjunctionwouldbe
significantlydiminished,andasapracticalmatter,theremnant
Paragraphs1and9wouldlackanyrealpotencyinregardto
theissuesinthisaction(assumingthattheyevensatisfythe
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b)narrowtailoringandspecificity
requirementsdiscussedinPartIIabove).
71
However,thefactthattheremnantparagraphsmightno
longerformaspotentaninjunctiondoesntmeanthata
studiouslyabusivelitigantcouldnotmakevexatioususeofthat
diminishedinjunction.Forinstance,anaggressivelitigant
mightchoosetousetheremnantinjunctiontocowretailersinto
avoidingtheNewYorkmerchantsproducts.Orthelitigant
mightattempttosowconfusionbytellingothersthatthe
SecondCircuitaffirmedtheinjunction.
Thesearenotmerelyacademicorabstractconcerns;they
haveallactuallyhappenedinthiscase.Evennow,ATHI
continuestothreatenlocalretailerswithlawsuitsiftheycarry
anyoftheNewYorkmerchantsbaicaoherbaltea,evenwhen
theherbalteaisnotlabeledTibetanbaicaotea.
Moreover,intheparallelcancellationproceedings,inan
efforttolifttheUSPTOsstayofproceedingspendingthe
outcomeofthislitigation,ATHIhadincorrectlyrepresentedto
theUSPTOthatthedistrictjudgesJuneinterlocutory
72
injunctionwasajudgmentandfinalopinionfromwhich
[n]oappeal...hasbeenfiled,157eventhoughtheAppellants
had,infact,alreadyfiledrequestswiththedistrictcourtfor
posttrialrelief,andtheundersignedcounselhadalready
appearedintheactiontoparticipateposttrialandappellate
proceedings.158ATHIsinaccuraterepresentationscreated
unnecessaryproceedingsattheUSPTO,whichthenrequired
157
158
Registrant[ATHI]sMotiontoResumeat3(The[district]
courtgrantedjudgmentonthemeritsinATHIsfavoronits
claimofinfringementofitsTIBETANBAICAOTEAmark
againstKamNgasthecourtpermanentlyenjoinedKamNg
fromusingtheTIBETANBAICAOTEAmarkshownin
RegistrationNo.4,330,569inallgeographicareasoftheUnited
States.Noappealofthecourtsopinionandinjunctionhasbeen
filed.Theverdictandfinalopiniondefinitivelyestablishonthe
meritsthatATHIhaspriorityandsuperiorrightsinits
TIBETANBAICAOTEAmarkoverKamNg.)
<http://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=4330569&docInd
ex=14#docIndex=14>(Jul.15,2014).
Compareid.(ATHIsJuly152014MotiontoResumetoUSPTO
statingthatdistrictjudgesJuneinterlocutoryinjunctionwasa
judgmentandfinalopinionfromwhich[n]oappeal...
hasbeenfiled)withA17A18(districtcourtdocketsheet
showingmultiplefilingsmadebetweentheJune25,2014date
oftheinitialinjunction,andtheJuly15,2014dateofATHIs
MotiontoResume).
73
Appellant(Ms.)KamNgtodevotetimeandresourcesto
undoingATHIsrepresentations.
Naturally,ifthisCourtfindsthatATHIslitigation
strategyconcerningtheoriginsofthewordbaicaowas
disingenuous,thenplainlythedoctrineofuncleanhands
shouldbarATHIfromenjoyinganyequitablerelief.However,
underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thisCourtneednotfind
thatATHIactedwithactualdishonestyinordertodenyATHI
equitablerelieftounderthedoctrineofuncleanhands.
Here,despiteoverwhelmingcontraryevidencefrom
internettranslators,publishedbestsellersandeventheUSPTO,
ATHIhasobstinatelymaintainedthatcertainlytheterm
herbalactuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall,159andthat
thetermbaicaowasafancifulterm160thatd[id]ntmean
anything161andsomehowwasinventedbyATHIspresident
159
160
161
A143A144,atlines7:258:1.
A144,atlines1719.
A144,atline12.
74
inApril2009162.TheobjectiveunreasonablenessofATHIs
advocacydemonstratesadegreeofinequitythatshould
disqualifyATHIfromobtaininganyequitablerelieftowhichit
mightotherwisehavebeenentitled.ATHIsdecisionto
prolonglitigationoverthisfarcicalissuefurtherweighsagainst
ATHIonthispoint.
TherecklessaggressivenesswithwhichATHIpressedits
untenablehistoryofthetermbaicaoservesasapredictorfor
howATHImightcomportitselfwithanyinjunctioninhand,no
matterhowdiminished.Alitigantwhohasnocompunctions
aboutclaimingthatitinventedthetermbaicaoasanew
Chinesephrasein2009wheninfact,thatphrasehadbeenin
useformillenniacannotbecountedontodutifullyexercise
animplementasdangerousasafederalinjunction,evenifthe
injunctionismild.Theofficeoftheuncleanhandsdoctrine
162
A59(ATHIclaimingdateofitsFirstUseofthetermbaicaoas
Apr.08,2009).
75
ensuresthatinjunctivedecreesarenotentrustedtolitigants
whobelievethatitisreasonabletolitigateinsuchafashion.
IfthisCourtfindsthatATHIisnotentitledtoTibetan
baicaotea,themarginalbenefitsofretainingthetworesidual
catchallparagraphsaresubstantiallyoutweighedbythe
likelihoodformischief,asdemonstratedbythehistoryofthis
case.
IV. Theissuesraisedonthisappealcanberemedied
directlybyvacaturwithoutfurtherproceedings.
Noneofthegroundspresentedonthisappeal,if
accepted,requirearemandforfurtherproceedings.
Aremandisrequiredonlyifthetrialcourtwouldbeina
superiorpositiontoresolveanyremainingissuesfromthe
appeal.Areviewingcourtneednotremandacausetothe
districtcourtifthematterisconclusivelyresolvedbythe
appellatejudgment:
Anappellatecourthasthepowertodecidecases
onappealifthefactsintherecordadequately
76
supporttheproperresult,oriftherecordasa
wholepresentsnogenuineissueastoanymaterial
fact.(Theappellatecourtwilldeterminetheappeal
withoutmoreif...theonlycontentionsraisedbythe
partiesonappealdonotturnonfindingsoffact.).
Thus,ifwefindthatapartymustprevailasa
matteroflaw,aremandisunnecessary.163
Remandsareparticularlyunnecessarywhere,ashere,the
issuesaredecidedpurelyondocumentaryevidencewithout
requiringthecredibilityofwitnessestobeweighed.164
163
164
ChaseManhattanv.AmericanNat.Bank,93F.3d1064,1072
(2dCir.1996)(emphasisadded)(quotingStetsonv.HowardD.
Wolf&Assocs.,955F.2d847,850(2dCir.1992);Kingv.
Commissioner,458F.2d245,249(6thCir.1972);and9A
CHARLESA.WRIGHT&ARTHURR.MILLER,FEDERALPRACTICE
ANDPROCEDURE2577,at52226(2ded.1994)).
Malev.CrossroadsAssociates,469F.2d616,620n.4(2dCir.
1972)(Wheretherecordconsistsentirelyofdocumentary
evidenceexhibits,affidavits,answerstointerrogatories,and
depositionsweareascompetentasthedistrictcourtto
determineifagenuinefactualdisputeexists.).
77
A. IftheexpressionTibetanbaicaoteacannot
betrademarked,thisCourtcandirectlyvacate
Paragraphs28oftheAmendedInjunction
withoutremand.
InPartIabove,theNewYorkmerchantsargued
thattheexpressionTibetanbaicaoteawastoo
descriptivetobetrademarked.
SevenoutofthenineparagraphsintheAmended
InjunctionrelatesolelytotheexpressionTibetanbaicao
tea.Specifically,thesesevenparagraphsareParagraphs
28.165IfthisCourtconcludesthattheexpression
Tibetanbaicaoteacannotbetrademarked,theseseven
paragraphscanbevacateddirectlywithoutfurther
proceedings.
B. IfParagraphs1and9lackthespecificity
requiredbyFed.R.Civ.P.65(d),thisCourtcan
vacatethoseParagraphswithoutremand.
InPartIIabove,theNewYorkmerchantsargued
thatParagraphs1and9oftheAmendedInjunction
165
A185A186at28.
78
lackedthespecificityrequiredbyFed.R.Civ.P.65(d).If
thisCourtconcludesthatthesetwoparagraphsdonot
satisfyFed.R.Civ.P.65(d),thesetwoparagraphscanbe
vacateddirectlywithoutfurtherproceedings.
C. IfthisCourtdeterminesthattheinjunctionwas
procuredbyuncleanhands,thisCourtcan
vacatetheentireinjunctionwithoutremand.
InPartIIIabove,theNewYorkmerchantsargued
thatATHIseffortstoobtaininjunctivereliefwas
thoroughlycontaminatedbyobjectivelyunreasonable
representationsconcerningthemeaningandoriginsof
thetermbaicao,andthatnoinjunctivereliefshouldhave
beengrantedasaconsequence.IfthisCourtconcludes
thatATHIhad,indeed,actedwithuncleanhands,the
entireinjunctioncanbevacateddirectlywithoutfurther
proceedings.
79
ChartSummarizingTranslationIssues
OverTibetanBaicaoTea
1
EnglishMark
ChineseMark
Undisputed
Transliteration
2
Tibetan
4
Baicao
5
Tea
Bai
Cao
Appellants
Translation
Tibet/Tibetan
Herbs/Herbal166
Tea
Appellees
Translation
Tibet/Tibetan
[Nomeaning]167
Tea
Pleasesee
footnote.168
DistrictCourts
Opinion
166
167
168
SeeArgument,supra,PartsI.AB.
SeeA143A144,atlines7:258:1([C]ertainlythetermherbal
actuallydoesnottranslatetoBaicaoatall.);A144,atlines12
19(Baicaodoesntmeananything....ThetermBaicaoisa
termthatourclientcameupwithtodescribethenameofthe
tea....Itisafancifultermthatshecameupwith.);A53&A57
&A59(threecertificationsthatTheword[]BAICAOhasno
meaninginaforeignlanguage.).
SeeA126,atlines46([T]hewordbaicaoisbeingstretched
intoatrademark,whichstandingaloneitisnot.);A146,at
lines2223([T]hetermBaicao,...hasmuchbroaderand
separatemeanings.);A149,atlines2225(Itseemstomethat
thetruevisionofthesituationisthatthetrademarkisTibetan
BaicaoTea,andthatswhatshouldbeprotected,otherthan
anysinglewordinthegroup.).
80
CONCLUSION
Fortheforegoingreasons,theAppellantsrespectfullyrequest
thatthisCourtvacatetheAmendedInjunctioninitsentirety.
Dated:February27,2015
NewYork,NewYork
Respectfullysubmitted,
/s/MitchellM.Wong
____________________________
MitchellM.Wong
AshmasonsLLP
FortyWallStreet,Floor28
NewYork,NewYork10005
Tel.:
(212)6711068
Fax:
(212)2024756
mitchell.wong@ashmasons.com
CounselforAppellants
81
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
Iherebycertifythat,incompliancewithF.R.A.P.32(a)(7)(B),the
withinbriefcontains12,005words(ascalculatedusingtheword
countingfeatureofMicrosoftWord)in14pt.proportionalfont,
exclusiveofcorporatedisclosurestatement,tables,andcertifications.
/s/MitchellM.Wong.
MITCHELLM.WONG
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
MITCHELLM.WONGcertifiesasfollows:
(1) Onthisdate,IcausedAppellantsBriefandAppendixtobe
electronicallyfiledandserveduponallcounselofrecordvia
theECFfilingsystem.
(2) Onthisdate,IcausedsixhardcopiesofAppellantsBriefand
Appendix,andsixhardcopiesoftheAppendix,tobesentvia
courierto:
CatherineOHaganWolfe,
ClerkofCourt
UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuit
ThurgoodMarshallUnitedStatesCourthouse
40FoleySquare,NewYork,NewYork10007
Icertifyunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingstatementsare
trueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledge.
/s/MitchellM.Wong.
MITCHELLM.WONG

Gov Uscourts Ca2 14-4748 52 0 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gov Uscourts Ca2 14-4748 52 0 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page1 of 91

K & C INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC.,

AMERICAN TIBETAN HEALTH INSTITUTE, INC., CHUNG KEE (USA)

FARGO TRADING INC.,

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page2 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page3 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page4 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page5 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page6 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page7 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page8 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page9 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page10 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page11 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page12 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page13 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page14 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page15 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page16 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page17 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page18 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page19 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page20 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page21 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page22 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page23 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page24 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page25 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page26 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page27 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page28 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page29 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page30 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page31 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page32 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page33 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page34 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page35 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page36 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page37 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page38 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page39 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page40 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page41 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page42 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page43 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page44 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page45 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page46 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page47 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page48 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page49 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page50 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page51 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page52 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page53 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page54 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page55 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page56 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page57 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page58 of 91

Case 14-4748, Document 52, 02/27/2015, 1448646, Page59 of 91