|
RAPAPORT... The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a trademark lawsuit accusing Breitling USA Inc. of infringing on Chris Aire's Red Gold® trademark. With this dismissal, Breitling must now return to the lower court to circumvent Aire's Red Gold® trademark, if it chooses, which attorneys for the famed designer and Solid 21 Inc. claimed would be ''a daunting task,'' given the higher court's admonition that Aire "has submitted supporting documentation indicating that its Red Gold mark is registered in accordance with the Lanham Act." The case, filed by Solid 21 Inc. on behalf of Chris Aire Fine Jewelry and Timepieces, is one of 15 suits Aire filed in January 2011 to protect the company's Red Gold trademark. In the lawsuits, Aire accused Breitling, Swatch, Bulgari, LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton and several other watch brands of using the Red Gold mark despite the fact that his company has held a trademark registration certificate for Red Gold since 2003. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) also deemed the trademark incontestable as far back as 2007, according to Aire's legal team. Aire stated that since obtaining his trademark, he has spent millions of dollars to brand the trademark and create demand for the line in the marketplace via tastemakers and other celebrities. The Ninth Circuit ruled that U.S. District Judge Gary A. Fess had erred when ruling that the Red Gold trademark was generic and not protected. “Solid 21’s federal registration of its trademark constitutes prima facie evidence of the mark’s validity,” according to the Circuit Court's statement. Aire said, "This ruling reaffirms that we live in the greatest country in the world and that the rule of law bends towards truth and justice. I am truly grateful to the Ninth Circuit judges and the American legal system for reaffirming my faith that the law protects us all. We've worked very hard to build our brand within the confines of the law, and no company should be allowed to just come in and take that away from us. We are not trying to monopolize the look – we simply want to protect our brand, our name and our work. The ruling by the Ninth Circuit shows that no company, however large and powerful, is above the law."
|