NIRVANA LAWSUIT CENTERS ON “SMILEY FACE” LOGO
The smiley face logo, with X’s for eyes, has become emblematic of 90s grunge band Nirvana. The iconic rock group filed a lawsuit last December against Marc Jacobs, accusing the fashion house of stealing their logo. Now, Marc Jacobs is countersuing Nirvana in a case that raises interesting intellectual property law questions.
First, some history about the case. Nirvana fans are familiar with the smiley face logo and readily associate it with the band. When Marc Jacobs decided to use the image, it replaced the “X” eyes with its initials, “M” and “J.” Instead of the word “Nirvana” above the modified smiley face, the word “Heaven” is written. The font is similar to the type used by the band in its merchandise.
Marc Jacobs produced t-shirts with the modified smiley face as part of its Bootleg Redux Grunge collection. The band claimed that the image is a clearly doctored version of their famous logo. In December 2018, they sued, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The band also accuses Marc Jacobs of deliberately misleading Nirvana fans into believing the band endorses the Bootleg Grunge Collection.
The fashion house filed a motion to dismiss, asking the judge to throw out the lawsuit against it. But on November 15, the judge denied the request and gave Nirvana permission to proceed with its claims.
In its counterclaim, Marc Jacobs asserts that it is unclear who actually designed the Nirvana smiley face logo. It is possible that the late Kurt Cobain, lead singer of the band who died in 1994, designed the image. The apparent absence of any living person who can explain the image’s origin is the primary basis for the counterclaim.
In allowing the lawsuit to go forward, U.S. District Court Judge John Kronstadt noted the above similarities. He also pointed out that Marc Jacobs’ use of yellow lines on a black background is similar to Nirvana’s logo.
Judge Kronstadt made clear the logos need not be identical to show there is a likelihood of confusion between them. In trademark infringement cases, the likelihood of confusion is typically the underlying issue. And it is enough if the logos are sufficiently similar in their entirety, said Kronstadt. A fact-finder has to make that determination, which is why the motion was dismissed.
Marc Jacobs has acknowledged its logo was “inspired” by the Nirvana image. But it defended its version, saying it “reinterpreted” the design.
Intellectual property cases usually turn on the facts, as the Nirvana logo dispute reminds us. However, motions to dismiss and other pretrial actions can short circuit your case before it’s even heard. Lawyers for Nirvana were able to beat back an attempt to do this, and now their case will go forward. You should make sure before you file an action that you have the right legal team ready to defend you.
A good intellectual property lawyer can also anticipate and respond to counterclaims from the defendant. In this case, Marc Jacobs is fighting back with its own lawsuit. That sort of action adds a new dimension to any case. Having the right attorney means being prepared for any sort of legal maneuvering the other side can come up with.
YOU HAVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUESTIONS, AND WE HAVE THE ANSWERS
No matter what sort of intellectual property case you are dealing with, we can help. Our attorneys know the importance of protecting your brand and your company’s reputation. Logos and other protected images represent all the work you have put into building your company. If someone is trying to use that for their own advantage, take action. Let the intellectual property attorneys of Eddington & Worley answer your questions and go to work for you. Give us a call today to schedule a consultation with our legal team.
Source Article: httpss://www.nme.com/news/music/nirvana-given-permission-proceed-copyright-lawsuit-marc-jacobs-2574607