GA Court Dismisses Auction Management's Trademark Suit over its Online RingMan Service Mark

Holding:

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a trademark infringement suit over a wholesale auction company's OnLine RingMan service mark. In this case, plaintiff Auction Management Solutions, Inc. (“AMS”) sued defendant Manheim Auctions, Inc. (“Manheim”), claiming that Manheim improperly used both a confusingly similar variant of AMS’ marks OnLine RingMan, and RingMan in various forms - including GM OnLine RingMan, RingMan, and RingMan Simulcast - to identify Manheim’s online auction system. After reviewing the entire record, the district court concluded that AMS failed to show evidence of a likelihood of confusion. Specifically, AMS did not present studies or surveys assessing confusion, nor did it alleged that there were any customers or prospective customers who experienced any potential confusion. Because AMS disclaimed exclusive rights to the individual term “ringman," the district court concluded that plaintiff’s claim of infringement with regard to Manheim's use of the term “ringman” ultimately should fail. In sum, based on the absence of any evidence of wrongful conduct or likelihood of confusion, the district court granted Manheim’s motion for summary judgment.

Detailed Summary:

Defendant Manheim is a wholesale auction company, which re-markets vehicles for other individuals and entities (collectively, “consignors”) that wish to sell vehicles that they own. Manheim sells consignors’ vehicles to licensed franchise and independent auto dealers (collectively, “dealers”). From 2000 to 2003, Manheim operated more than eighty auction houses in the United States. Opinion, pp. 1-2.

On the other hand, plaintiff Auction is the vendor of a product called OnLine Ringman. OnLine Ringman is software that allows remote bidders to participate in a live auction taking place at an auction house. The software broadcasts audio, video, and bidding-related information over the internet simultaneously with live auctions and permits internet users to bid in the auction. Id., p. 2.

Before using OnLine Ringman, an auto auction house must set up equipment in an auction lane, including computers with OnLine Ringman software installed on a network to AMS’s computer system. Id. In September 2002, AMS obtained a registered logo service mark for OnLine Ringman.2 In registering this mark, AMS represented that “[n]o claim [was] made to the exclusive right to use ‘RINGMAN,’ apart from the mark as shown.” Id., p. 3, citing Ex. 13.) The trademark examiner also found “RINGMAN” to be a descriptive term, describing the auctioneer’s assistant who accepts the bids and reports them to the head auctioneer. Id., citing Ex. 6.

Manheim never licensed OnLine Ringman on a company-wide basis. It only permitted its auction houses to decide individually whether to use the software. Of the eighty houses, eleven of them elected to do so for varying periods of time ranging between March 2001 and August 2003. AMS did not allege any improper marketing by nine of the eleven Manheim auction houses that utilized OnLine Ringman. AMS’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims rested solely on marketing performed by two Manheim auction houses: Manheim Auto Auction (“MAA”) and Portland Auto Auction (“PAA”).

AMS alleged trademark infringement under both Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and under the common law based on two separate types of wrongful acts by Manheim. First, AMS claimed that Manheim improperly used both a confusingly similar variant of AMS’ design mark ONLINE RINGMAN, as well as its word mark ONLINE RINGMAN and RINGMAN in various forms - including GM ONLINE RINGMAN, RINGMAN, and RINGMAN SIMULCAST - to identify Manheim’s online auction system. Id., p. 11.

Second, AMS alleged unfair competition and deceptive trade practices based on Manheim’s alleged improper use of its own trademark SIMULCAST in association with AMS’ online auction system. AMS’s state law claims rise and fall with its federal claims. Id., citing Optimum Techs. V. Home Depot U.S.A., 217 Fed. Appx. 899, 902 (11th Cir. 2007).

According to the district court, the record showed that AMS disclaimed exclusive rights to the individual term “ringman.” AMS alleged that Manheim committed trademark infringement by using this portion of the composite mark. Because of the AMS disclaimer however, the district court concluded that plaintiff’s claim of infringement with regard to the two instances where Manheim utilized the term “ringman” ultimately should fail. Id., p. 12.

The plaintiff also alleged that defendant used the phrase “GM Online Ringman” on PAA’s website but had “simulcast” listed at the bottom. While this may be a potential misuse, plaintiff did not present evidence of any confusion occurring as a result of this misuse. Further, the district court added, it was very unlikely that any confusion would have taken place, since a user would immediately know the difference between the products when he or she accessed the web page. Id., p. 13.

The district court also concluded that the marketing at-issue created no likelihood of confusion. Even if AMS had evidence that Manheim engaged in conduct that could amount to infringement of a federally registered mark,  AMS would need to make a further showing that the particular challenged conduct created a likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers. Id., p. 14, citing Lipscher v. LRP Publ’ns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir. 2001).

After reviewing the entire record, the district court concluded that AMS failed to show evidence of a likelihood of confusion. It did not present studies or surveys assessing confusion, and it failed to allege that there were any customers or prospective customers who experienced any potential confusion at any time since the introduction of Manheim’s Simulcast system. Id., p. 15.

The district court noted that the customers at issue here - auction houses - are sophisticated commercial actors that make significant investments in time and resources to use these types of products. Additionally, Manheim never sought to license its Simulcast system to competing auction companies, nor did it target its marketing to other auction companies. Other auction companies were Manheim’s competitors, not their customers. Id.

Finally, Manheim presented evidence that AMS’s customers were not in fact confused by the complained-of terminology and marketing. In conclusion, even if AMS showed a likelihood of confusion exists, it failed to demonstrate that such confusion was caused by the complained-of marketing.

Based on the absence of any evidence of wrongful conduct or likelihood of confusion, the district court granted Manheim’s motion for summary judgment.

Also See:

USPTO Issues TEAS 4.9 Release

Bicameral, Bipartisan IP Protection Bill That Will Not Break the Net Filed in Both Chambers

Additional Courtesy Electronic Mail Addresses Now Permitted for Trademark Correspondence

USPTO Expands Consistency Initiative

European Union Court Issues Ruling in Trademark Dispute between Google and Louis Vuitton