As with most crises, the COVID-19 pandemic captivated its share of unscrupulous opportunists. A single company’s alleged try at price-gouging resulted in a novel application of trademark law. 

Add to this the passage of new trademark legislation, and it will become crystal clear the pandemic time period has been an exciting one particular for intellectual home lawyers who specialize in this spot.

N95 Masks, 3M, and Price Gouging

In April 2020, the 3M Company sued Functionality Source, LLC — a reseller of N95 masks — in the U.S. District Court docket for the Southern District of New York. 3M was trying to find relief for federal trademark infringement less than Segment 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114), furthermore a number of state regulation statements. Other allegations beneath the Lanham Act bundled wrong association, phony endorsement, federal trademark dilution and untrue marketing. 

But this situation did not contain the sale of counterfeit masks stamped with the 3M mark, though there had been a good deal of individuals lawsuits all through the pandemic. This scenario included Performance Supply’s tried sale of legitimate masks (the court docket phone calls them respirators) to a federal government entity at “exorbitant” costs, in accordance to the court’s May possibly 4, 2020, view granting a preliminary injunction.

Trademark infringement statements involving value gouging are not regular. 

“I’m not informed of any just before the pandemic,” mentioned Bruce Ewing, co-chair of Dorsey & Whitney LLP’s Intellectual Home Litigation Apply Team and college chairperson for the Practising Legislation Institute’s Comprehension the Mental Assets License application.

This circumstance represents a novel software of the Lanham Act by 3M. Amongst other items, the courtroom uncovered that the defendant acted in lousy religion, which is not stunning thinking about the company was attempting to capitalize on a fatal intercontinental emergency. Effectiveness Supply’s lousy religion was stark versus the actions of 3M, which ramped up production after the crisis as well as pledged it would not increase its rates at all, according to the feeling.

Central to the circumstance is a estimate the defendant despatched to New York City’s procurement workplace presenting to promote N95 masks — authentic types — for 5 situations the normal value. In this estimate, “The Defendant reproduced 3M’s marks 9 situations and referenced 3M’s headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota, seeking to indicate a relationship with 3M that does not exist,” the view mentioned.

As it evaluated the present, New York City described the defendant as a 3M vendor, even although it was no this sort of matter, the viewpoint mentioned. This precise variety of confusion, among the other issues, led to the getting of trademark infringement even though the case was not the standard occasion of just one company making use of the registered trademark — or anything resembling it — of yet another firm on its own products.

While a wary procurement officer’s call to 3M prevented the city from acquiring the masks at the inflated price tag, the court docket saw healthy to issue a preliminary injunction and momentary restraining get. “Absent injunctive aid . . . there is practically nothing to reduce Defendant from making similar presents to other governing administration or healthcare entities around the United States,” the view stated.

A party have to exhibit irreparable damage to receive an injunction. The court docket discovered 3M was most likely to go through this sort of hurt “in two respects, namely: (i) good quality and (ii) name.”

Relating to good quality, the court identified that 3M could not watch the point out of merchandise sold outdoors its approved product sales channels, which the defendant most decidedly was not, regardless of its rampant use of the 3M trademark on its value estimate.

As for status, the courtroom explained, “No sum of dollars could repair service the harm to 3M’s brand and reputation if it is involved with the criminal offense of price tag-gouging at the cost of health care staff and other initial responders in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis.”

The courtroom noted that damage to the general public could be taken into account when buying a preliminary injunction. It also discovered that 3M contented the other two prongs of the check for identifying whether or not an exercise ought to be enjoined: 3M was very likely to do well on the merits, and the harmony of hardships tipped in its favor.

The Trademark Modernization Act

While the Trademark Modernization Act had nothing for each se to do with the pandemic, it was handed as element of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2020 that included a different $900 billion in Covid relief. The TMA, among the other factors, streamlines the approach for canceling registered emblems that are not getting utilised for business needs as demanded, according to the Federal Sign up.

Considerably of the new law is nonetheless staying carried out. 

“The trademark place of work only a short while ago promulgated procedures about clearing out deadweight,” Ewing said, referring to the unused trademarks.

From Ewing’s standpoint, the most significant part of the TMA “is an addition to the Lanham Act of a rebuttable presumption of irreparable damage when seeking equitable relief on a trademark litigation claim.” 

The language of Section 6 of the TMA is clear. It directs the insertion of the adhering to statement into Area 34(a) of the Lanham Act: “A plaintiff in search of any this sort of injunction shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable hurt on a locating of a violation discovered in this subsection in the case of a movement for a long-lasting injunction or upon a finding of probability of success on the deserves for a violation determined in this subsection in the scenario of a motion for a preliminary injunction or short term restraining order.”

The violation to which the assertion refers is trademark infringement.

This evaluate grew to become required simply because of a Supreme Court docket choice, Ewing stated. 

“It utilised to be the legislation that if you proven the component of very likely confusion then irreparable harm was presumed,” he reported. “Unfortunately, when the Supreme Courtroom made a decision the eBay situation . . . it rejected the presumption of irreparable hurt.”

Ewing is referring to eBay Inc. et al. v. MercExchange L.L.C., a patent situation made a decision in 2006 that included a business enterprise method produced by MercExchange. The district courtroom observed that the patent was legitimate but declined to grant an injunction.

“In reversing, the Federal Circuit [Court of Appeals] utilized its ‘general rule that courts will difficulty long term injunctions towards patent infringement absent excellent situation,’” the scenario syllabus claimed.

On enchantment to the Supreme Courtroom, eBay and the other petitioners argued that the standard 4-aspect exam for no matter if to grant an injunction applies to disputes arising below the Patent Act, and that the Federal Circuit erred when it mentioned courts will difficulty injunctions in all but extraordinary instances.

“We concur and, appropriately, vacate the judgment of the Courtroom of Appeals,” the Supreme Court docket viewpoint explained.

“Many courts held that the eBay scenario applies to conditions of trademark infringement,” Ewing explained. “It unquestionably brought on trouble. The TMA has rectified the condition.”

A lot of believe the eBay case was resolved correctly, Ewing explained, introducing that its software by other courts to trademark situations wasn’t automatically inappropriate simply because of similarities in the wording of the Patent Act and the Lanham Act. He thinks it is good to use the two statutes the similar way in constrained respects, when their provisions are identical.

The rebuttable presumption of harm is a various matter. 

“I think there are acceptable arguments why you would not think hurt in a patent situation or a copyright scenario, but trademark is unique,” Ewing reported. “Trademarks serve to guard the general public. If you establish confusion, the harm need to be viewed as irreparable. You cannot ‘unconfuse’ the general public.”

For the most recent on mental house, stop by PLI’s Comprehending the Mental Residence License system. Click here for supplemental applications.


Elizabeth M. Bennett was a company reporter who moved into legal journalism when she protected the Delaware courts, a conquer that inspired her to go to law school. Immediately after a number of years as a training legal professional in the Philadelphia area, she decamped to the Pacific Northwest and returned to freelance reporting and editing.