Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
from the make-it-up-on-the-back-end dept
The last time we checked in on the trademark dispute between the San Diego Comic-Con and the Salt Lake Comic Con, we were in the wake of the jury's decision that SLCC did in fact violate the trademark rights of the SDCC by daring to use the term "Comic Con." We pointed out at the time that this is pretty plainly insane as a matter of trademark law, both because of the generic nature of festivals all over the country using some version of "comic con" in their names and the fact that the term itself is almost purely descriptive, being a shortened version of "comic convention", which is what all of these shows are. While the verdict didn't come down as predicted, the jury did manage to only award SDCC $20k in damages, finding that the infringement was not willful. The last checkpoint in the case was SDCC petitioning to get attorney's fees out of SLCC and to prevent it from calling itself a "comic convention."
Well, Judge Anthony Battaglia has ruled on both requests and, holy shit, he both granted most of the injunction requests and somehow managed to award $4 million dollars in attorney's fees to SDCC in a case that resulted in a $20k judgement.
In yet another victory for Comic-Con in its long-running battle over the rights to its name, a San Diego judge has ordered organizers of Salt Lake City’s comic convention to pay nearly $4 million in attorney fees and costs.
The ruling Thursday by U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia also granted a permanent injunction barring the Salt Lake convention from using various versions of San Diego Comic-Con’s trademarked names, a decision that eventually could have a more wide-ranging impact on other conventions that continue to incorporate variations of the Comic-Con name.
Battaglia justified the high dollar award by claiming that the case was "exceptional" in nature, essentially arguing that SLCC's defense was needlessly robust in ways that caused SDCC to have to spend more on its legal fees than it otherwise would have. That justification appears to ignore the reality of the situation, one in which SLCC for some reason had to defend its use of a shortened descriptor for the exact kind of show it was putting on. The injunction is somehow even more insane, with the court barring a comic convention from calling itself by any name that remotely approaches the term "comic-con" except for the term "comic convention", from which that shortened term is directly derived. In other words, a comic convention can call itself a "comic convention" but not a "comic con." That "vention" appears to be doing a great deal of heavy lifting in Battaglia's mind.
SLCC, of course, immediately signaled its intent to appeal.
“We do not expect a $4 million attorney fee award predicated on a $20,000 jury verdict to survive appellate review,” they said. “We have instructed our attorneys to begin working on an appeal to the Ninth Circuit — while we prepare for what we expect to be our best event ever, starting September 6."
The money is one thing, but the injunction is what will really have an impact for other conventions throughout the country. Suddenly, SDCC has a legal win that includes forcing another comic convention in another state to not be able to accurately call itself anything other than a "comic convention" specifically, with all other variations on that term being verboten. That sound you hear right now is hundreds of organizers of comics festivals falling out of their chairs.
Hopefully this all gets corrected on appeal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comic-con, comiccon, trademark
Companies: salt lake comic con, san diego comic-con
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
An appeal to satire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh so they returned a verdict for the big bad (non-profit) corporation, against SLCC, who broke the law, knowingly, and then refused to settle in a childish attempt to put the hurt on SDCC by forcing them to rack up legal fees. The judge was correct to punish them for using this lawsuit as a weapon against SDCC... they couldn't beat them with a legal argument so they tried to hit them in the wallet.
FYI, any organization like SLCC doesn't name anything without having their lawyers run a trademark check. They absolutely knew that they were infringing SDCC's marks and had no defense. I don't see why you feel it necessary to paint them as martyrs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Anyhoot, now TOTALLY proved right that SLCC should have just begged nicely. -- Bet they took Techdirt's advice and thought they had a "right"! HA, HA!
Weenies just TAKE, but humans cooperate, or at least grovel and wheedle, rather than shell out FOUR MILLION + 20,000 for not being NICE! Learn the lesson, kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
This is clearly *not* over, there's an appeal...and, it's reported on because "comic con" is descriptive, therefore not trademarkable -- kind of like "beer". So the current result *is* bonkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
No, it's just insane that SLCC lost a case about calling their convention a "con," since that had been commonplace since the 1930s.
WorldCon (54), Academy Con (65-67), Balticon (66-present) New York Comicon (64), AggieCon (69), Bubonicon (69). All in use before SDCC, all a descriptor attached to "con." The jury was unreasonable, if not misled.
And, are you calling SDCC "weenies?" Because they are the ones trying to "take" from the commons, not SLCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
In this case, SDCC owns the registered trademark for "Comic-Con", so the defense of "Someone else it first" isn't going to fly. Registered trademarks take precedent over first usage... and someone else's first usage has nothing to do with anything... lmao
Additionally, $4M in legal fees isn't unheard of or unreasonable for these types of cases. SLCC knew they were taking a risk by refusing to settle when SDCC had them dead to rights as we say. The very fact that fees were awarded in a Lanham Act infringement action shows that SLCC's position was extremely weak and the court essentially added an extra punishment because they had a flimsy defense and refused to settle. By doing so, they wasted the court's time (thus our taxpayer dollars) and racked up millions in legal fees. SDCC shouldn't be on the hook -- SLCC knew that fees would pile up this high, and may have well refused to settle as a means of retaliating against SDCC. The court is totally right to hold them accountable for these fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay but why though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
"bring it on!" "Don't settle!" Gee, who benefits fromt his aoa? Lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Yeah, the lawyers walk away with a nice big check at the end, but I think it's fair to say they earned it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Here, SLCC had absolutely no chance of winning this case, which is why the court awarded fees to the Plaintiff. Lanham Act claims only warrant fee awards in exceptional cases, such as this one, where the defendant refused to settle despite being dead to rights. There's really no reason for them to try this case other than to hurt SDCC by running up their legal bills. If that's their intent, that's a serious abuse of the legal system. The court rightly punished them for taking a position that was at best legal malpractice, and at worst malicious retaliation against the plaintiff SDCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
And what lesson is to be learned here? That you like to bash anyone who dares question anything, while conveniently changing your view to fit whichever narrative demonizes others the best?
How many years have been pretending to read these articles and throwing garbage comments like this at it? You're barely even competent as a troll, but you're somehow getting WORSE at just being a hypocrite.
As for "IGNORING reality in favor of your notions so completely", there is a Chinese proverb involving glass houses and stones that I think applies. It goes something like this: You're a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
In this case, the point of Trademarks is to allow companies to distinctly identify themselves from competitors. "Comic Con" doesn't cut it for all the reasons KillerCool stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Now days we do not seem concerned about consumer protection, it has become open season so to speak. The old saying "buyer Beware" is still applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Common phrases and terms are very much trademarkable. Proctor & Gamble recently registered "WTF" and "LOL". The USPTO had no objections.
Have you read the court order? If you take a look at it, the court discusses how weak the case was. That's the judge talking, not a jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Magic Eight Ball says..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SDCC are truly the real comic cons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Oh you better believe you're paying for defending yourself.'
Battaglia justified the high dollar award by claiming that the case was "exceptional" in nature, essentially arguing that SLCC's defense was needlessly robust in ways that caused SDCC to have to spend more on its legal fees than it otherwise would have.
Which essentially translates to: 'How dare you force them to spend more money in court than they wanted to rather than just rolling over immediately.'
With this ruling the judge basically made it a punishable offense to defend yourself in court to the best of your ability, and to say that that's insane is a massive understatement.
Hopefully a higher court will slap this judge down hard, because between an absolutely insane penalty for the defendant having the sheer gall to try to defend themself in court, and a ludicrously bad injunction that should never have been granted there seems to be plenty for a higher court to work with here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Oh you better believe you're paying for defending yourself.'
I read about a sociopathic vexatious litigant that claimed that defendants were "making excessive filings" by filing responses to all of his unnecessary motions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where pro se litigants are involved, fee awards are not even possible, yet it is not an equal-protection violation to award them against an unrepresented party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While possible given the wild Rule 68 rulings, depending on the situation, might not be considered 'reasonable'. The discussions on variance that occurs in Rule 68 jurisprudence doesn't seem to include discussions of reasonableness, I am going to guess that few low ball Rule 68 offers are made. If the case is reasonable, I imagine defendants would make reasonable settlement offers, rather then super low ball offers. Competent council, which a person sued for $1,000,000 probably has, would likely note that $500, sans costs, is unreasonable, and not submit such a case. But that is just my perception and some surface research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At what point does robust and wide ranging arguments become a "needless" defence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the judge is tired of hearing this case and wants it over with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson here
It's very addictive to these narcissists to be the center of attention in the judiciary, and every dollar spent on attorneys who feed this narcissism is justified. These are the same4 people who can't find $10 if you're short of cash that week and who don't hang out with you unless you're the "equal," as in equally rich, equally narcissistic, and equally stupid.
The beauty of this is that the Defendant will need someone to blame, and that's their attorney in all likelihood, when in fact their own self-entitled hubris is the real culprit.
Those who incite "bring it on!" defenses are definitely catalysts, but they are merely uncovering the existing problem of hubris and intransigence among the wealthy and entitled.
Perhaps now the next time some poor person sues a rich person the rich person won't be so quick to run up their legal bills with a "rbous defense" that has little chance of prevailing.
IP laws exist for areason, reasons made clear by this ruling. Those who attack the judge won't hesitate to cite favorable precedents in other cases as "black letter law." BTW, has the SCOTUS ever ruled on whether or not Section 230 immunizes distributors of defamation, who are not "publishers or speakers?" A bookstore can be liable as a distributor even though it is not the publisher or speaker of the books. The SCOTUS has said that omission of a letgal term (like "distributor") is reflective of congressional intent. You'd think the SCTOUS would have affirmed Section 230 by now if that were it's aim, which says that they may be looking to drop the hammer the other way once the internet is built out by the Teflon pioneers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sets a precedent for future cases
Oh, the jury only awarded them $10,000 in the next case against New York Comic-Con? Now that a precedent has been set, they should be able to sue for $4 million again.
Aren't judges supposed to you know, judge the entire case, including how the law should be applied? It would have been easy for him to say "The jury ruled, neither party gets attorneys fees, and the case is over".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the win
That's right it's a comic-con ... not a convention... and we're just now seeing the payout on this legal con.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets go back a step
"San Diego"
He cant use it as PART of the name..its to generic.
He can KEEP "Comic-Con", but he CANT have the City name..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, why did you all ignore the judges reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the judge's extremely poor judgement has already been covered extensively. See the salt lake comic con tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]