Hollander Not Comfortable With La-Z-Boy Over "Live Life Comfortably" Slogan
By: Jake Wharton
On May 23, 2011, Boca Raton-based Hollander Home Fashions, LLC sued La-Z-Boy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for trademark infringement (Civil Action No. 9:11-cv-80605). The suit also asks the court to instruct the United States Patent and Trademark Office to deny La-Z-Boy's pending trademark application for "LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY."
In the complaint, Hollander alleges that it uses the trademark LIVE COMFORTABLY in conjunction with its sale of bedding including pillows, comforters, blankets, and mattress pads. Hollander has two federal registrations, one for LIVE COMFORTABLY and the other for LA VIE DOUILLETTE (the French translation of "live comfortably") for bedding products. Hollander alleges La-Z-Boy is using the phrase LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY in conjunction with sofas, chairs, recliners, loveseats, sectionals, lift chairs, and sleepers. In addition, Hollander alleges that La-Z-Boy uses LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY in connection with sleepers on which bedding such as pillows, blankets and sheets are located. Hollander further alleges that La-Z-Boy markets and/or licenses bedding products and uses or has authorized use of LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY in conjunction with those products. Hollander asserts claims of federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and common law unfair competition.
Hollander's allegations raises the question of whether the presence of incidental goods (i.e., bedding) in the sale of one's primary products (i.e., furniture) can give rise to trademark infringement. That may be a stretch if La-Z-Boy is not selling the bedding in the marketing material for its furniture. Conversely, the sale of bedding in conjunction with LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY fits the traditional mold for a trademark infringement action which will require a determination of whether La-Z-Boy's use is likely to cause consumer confusion. Hollander has gone out on a limb with the dilution claim as it will have to prove its mark is famous, and not just famous within a niche, e.g., the bedding industry.
In the complaint, Hollander alleges that it uses the trademark LIVE COMFORTABLY in conjunction with its sale of bedding including pillows, comforters, blankets, and mattress pads. Hollander has two federal registrations, one for LIVE COMFORTABLY and the other for LA VIE DOUILLETTE (the French translation of "live comfortably") for bedding products. Hollander alleges La-Z-Boy is using the phrase LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY in conjunction with sofas, chairs, recliners, loveseats, sectionals, lift chairs, and sleepers. In addition, Hollander alleges that La-Z-Boy uses LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY in connection with sleepers on which bedding such as pillows, blankets and sheets are located. Hollander further alleges that La-Z-Boy markets and/or licenses bedding products and uses or has authorized use of LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY in conjunction with those products. Hollander asserts claims of federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and common law unfair competition.
Hollander's allegations raises the question of whether the presence of incidental goods (i.e., bedding) in the sale of one's primary products (i.e., furniture) can give rise to trademark infringement. That may be a stretch if La-Z-Boy is not selling the bedding in the marketing material for its furniture. Conversely, the sale of bedding in conjunction with LIVE LIFE COMFORTABLY fits the traditional mold for a trademark infringement action which will require a determination of whether La-Z-Boy's use is likely to cause consumer confusion. Hollander has gone out on a limb with the dilution claim as it will have to prove its mark is famous, and not just famous within a niche, e.g., the bedding industry.
4 Comments:
This is what happens when the PTO allows companies to trademark common phrases. "Live comfortably!" as a mark for bedding is not only inherently ridiculous, if anyone with a smidgen of common sense got involved in the process it should be about as protectable as "Sleep well!" for a hotel chain or "Enjoy!" for a restaurant.
Robert - You're on to something with the protection of "common phrases." The purpose of a trademark is to serve as a source-identifier for consumers, not be a collection of pet phrases a manufacturers enjoys. Reading Hollander's complaint would lead one to believe they don't wake up in the morning without uttering "Live comfortably" when in reality I suspect it's a second or third tier mark for them. Thus, it's questionable whether it's a source identifier or not.
A nice post with nice information.All the photos and information is enough to get e perfect idea on good quality furniture.
-sofas recliners
Thanks for sharing such a informative information which is very fruitful.Hope to get new information in near future also.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home