On October twelfth, U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the Eastern Region of Louisiana entered a fundamental directive request against Jolie Home, LLC and different respondents blamed for trademark encroachment by Annie Sloan Insides, the U.K.- based creators of Annie Sloan® Chalk Paint®. The fundamental directive requests the respondents to stop their “reverse passing off” of Annie Sloan® items as Jolie Home items and their dispersion of promotions and marks for Jolie Home paints which guarantee to utilize indistinguishable recipe from Annie Sloan® Chalk Paint® and utilized the trademarked expression “chalk paint” in a non-reasonable use way.
Annie Sloan brought its trademark claims against Jolie Home and Jolie Structure and Stylistic layout, some time ago a merchant of Annie Sloan® Chalk Paint®, after it succeeded at locale court on rundown judgment with respect to the end of its dissemination assention. The understanding was for an interminable term and not a settled term of years and Annie Sloan looked to end the assention after Jolie Configuration started taking activities that went against the terms of that assention, for example, moving Annie Sloan® Chalk Paint® on online business destinations like Amazon.
Following that summary judgment, Annie Sloan then gave a half year notice to Jolie Plan that the dispersion understanding would be ended. While Annie Sloan was looking for the end of the dispersion assention, Jolie Plan and its administrator Lisa Rickert made another Jolie Home substance which consulted with an Annie Sloan Chalk Paint® maker and started to showcase a paint item which Annie Sloan affirmed encroached upon the two its trademarks and exchange dress behind the Chalk Paint® item.
Andy Lee, partner at Jones Walker LLP and lead counsel representing Annie Sloan in the case, commented that it was exceptionally uncommon that a previous merchant would hope to end up a maker contender after a dissemination understanding was finished. “A typical distributor that’s been terminated might find another product to sell, quietly moving on and not getting themselves into a trademark infringement situation.” By entering the primer directive keeping the encroaching Jolie Home item from coming to showcase, Lee said that the court kept Jolie Home from exchanging off on Annie Sloan’s notoriety.
The day before the entering of the starter directive, Judge Lemmon recorded a request and reasons breaking down both Annie Sloan’s movement for a fundamental order and Jolie Home’s movement to in part reject a corrected objection. This documenting talked about proof that Jolie Home intentionally tried to duplicate Annie Sloan’s exchange dress including the mark style text style for the brand name straightforwardly over “PAINT” in every capital letter, all in dark composition on a white foundation. Judge Lemmon likewise noted proof introduced at preliminary which indicated Jolie Home’s purpose to duplicate Annie Sloan incorporating correspondences with an advertising firm which prompted Jolie Home to “look to convert the [Annie Sloan] brand’s popularity” and to “maximize brand alignment to amplify consumer awareness.”
Alongside the trademark and exchange dress cases, the court likewise ordered Jolie Structure and alternate litigants from participating backward going off. Going off includes circumstances where a gathering moves an item it made itself in bundling which distinguishes it with an alternate brand; if Jolie Home sold paint that it made as Annie Sloan Chalk Paint®, that would have been viewed as “passing off.” Turn around going off happened when Jolie Home took true Annie Sloan Chalk Paint® and pictures of furniture painted with the Annie Sloan item and showcased those as being real Jolie Home articles. Lee noticed that one of the photos used to decide the turn around going off case delineated a table and seats. That image had been recently utilized on Jolie Plan’s Instagram feed where the paint was distinguished as Annie Sloan Chalk Paint®, yet that equivalent picture was later utilized in a Jolie Home pamphlet where the furnishings was recognized as being painted with Jolie Home’s paint item.
A trial regarding permanent injunction is scheduled to be held in June 2019 although Jolie Design has already appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lee noted that the standard of review for the appellate court was abuse of discretion which is typically deferential to the district court judge. “I’m not prejudging the outcome but I think you’ll see on appeal that the judge did a very thorough job and saw the evidence firsthand,” Lee said. “If Judge Lemmon got the law wrong, then it’s an issue, but our view is that she got the law right.” On November 20th, Annie Sloan also filed a motion for contempt against the defendants on allegations that they’ve already violated the preliminary injunction. The motion for contempt is set for a mid-January 2019 hearing date.