Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Plaintiff Melvin Ott sued Ingenix, Inc., for false association under section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, claiming it falsely used his name and resume in bidding for a contract with the State of Montana. In September 2008, the Eastern District of Washington dismissed his claim on summary judgment, finding he had not suffered any competitive injury and lacked standing to assert such a claim. (STL post here.)

On Oct. 23, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It found: “Section 43(a)(1)(A) ‘forbids the use of false designations of origin and false descriptions or representations in the advertising and sale of goods and services.’ ’[I]n order to satisfy standing’ under section 43(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff must ‘allege commercial injury based upon the deceptive use of a trademark or its functional equivalent.’ Because Ott has failed to establish that either his name or his professional identity constitutes a ‘trademark’ or the ‘equivalent of a trademark’ (either through secondary meaning or otherwise), we conclude that he cannot demonstrate the requisite commercial injury to establish standing.”

The case cite is Ott v. Ingenix, Inc., 2009 WL 3416067, No. 08-35907 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2009).