Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc. ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLUMENTHAL DISTRIBUTING, INC., Nos. 18-56471, 18-56493
DBA Office Star,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-counter-defendant- 5:14-cv-01926-JAK-SP
Appellant/Cross-Appellee
v. MEMORANDUM*
HERMAN MILLER, INC.,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 3, 2020
Pasadena, California
Before: HURWITZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
This cross-appeal arises out of Herman Miller, Inc.’s (“HM’s”) claims against
Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. d/b/a Office Star Products (“OSP”) for infringing and
diluting its registered and unregistered claimed EAMES and AERON trade dresses.1
1. We reject OSP’s argument that the district court erred in holding that
no adjustment to the infringement damages was required based on 15 U.S.C.
§ 1111’s notice-of-registration requirement. Even assuming that the award was
subject to that requirement, there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to HM, that the requirement was satisfied. The hangtag’s trademark
symbol and text stating that “HermanMiller and Eames are among the registered
trademarks of Herman Miller, Inc.”; the evidence of OSP’s awareness of its potential
infringement, which included an internal OSP email from September 2010
comparing its chairs to Eames chairs; and the adverse inference warranted by OSP’s
spoliation of records support a reasonable conclusion that OSP had notice of HM’s
registration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1111 as of October 2010, when OSP began
selling the first of its accused chairs.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by upholding the jury’s
award of infringement damages. See Skydive Ariz., Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d
1105, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying the abuse of discretion standard). The award
1
We resolve the issues of the functionality of the claimed EAMES and
AERON trade dresses and dilution in a concurrently filed opinion.
2
reflected all of OSP’s profits from its sale of the accused chairs, and was justified by
the evidence of OSP’s conscious effort to “gain the value” of the Eames chairs’
reputation and esteem. Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d
1059, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2015); 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Moreover, in light of the
evidence at trial of OSP’s competition against HM for sales, OSP’s profits from its
accused chairs were at least a “crude” proxy for HM’s lost profits, which, in light of
the evidence of OSP’s willfulness, was all that was needed. Skydive, 673 F.3d at
1112 (quoting Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 621 (9th Cir. 1993)).
3. Even if we were to entertain OSP’s single-sentence argument that there
was not sufficient evidence of likelihood of confusion nor of secondary meaning for
the unregistered claimed EAMES trade dresses, the argument expressly depends on
the assumption that those trade dresses were functional, and is thus defeated by our
holding, set forth in our concurrently filed opinion, that the jury’s finding of their
non-functionality was supported by sufficient evidence.
4. We deny HM’s motion for judicial notice as moot, as it concerns only
legislative facts for which “[j]udicial notice . . . is unnecessary.” Von Saher v. Norton
Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010). Since the
associated exhibits contain only legislative facts, we are free to consult them to the
extent we find them useful. See Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 534 n.4 (9th Cir.
2014); FED. R. EVID. 201 advisory committee notes.
3
Based on this memorandum disposition and the simultaneously filed opinion,
we affirm the judgment in favor of HM on its causes of action for the infringement
of its registered and unregistered claimed EAMES trade dresses; we reverse the
judgment in favor of HM on its cause of action for dilution; and we reverse the
portion of the judgment regarding the Aeron chairs in its entirety, and remand for a
new trial.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
4