CHICAGO (CN) — Grumpy Cat Limited is again in court docket this month with extra trademark fits. The firm, which owns the picture and likeness of the early 2010s web sensation “Grumpy Cat,” in April filed at the very least 4 separate lawsuits in federal court docket, accusing a gaggle of on-line retailers of violating its emblems to the eternally scowling cat’s face.
In just about equivalent complaints, the corporate mentioned the retailers ran quite a few on-line outlets promoting counterfeit Grumpy Cat merchandise — together with the whole lot from T-shirts and hats to espresso cups and wall posters. These retailers are based totally out of China, the corporate mentioned, although they do business all through the United States.
Lawsuits like these are nothing new for Grumpy Cat. Since 2019, the corporate has filed greater than 50 trademark lawsuits — and that is simply in federal court docket for the Northern District of Illinois. Many of these have concluded within the firm’s favor, with the court docket ordering the offending retailers (usually small-time individual operators) to cease gross sales.
For Grumpy Cat Limited, it is a fixed recreation of whack-a-mole. Whenever the corporate smacks down bootleggers in court docket, a brand new batch inevitably pops up with extra supposed Grumpy Cat merchandise.
There’s usually not a lot the U.S. court docket system can do. Since a lot of the counterfeiters reside overseas and are identified solely by their on-line handles, court docket orders demanding damages or injunction can have little affect.
“If it is an order right here, they cannot actually implement it in different international locations,” mentioned Yolanda King, a regulation professor on the University of Illinois Chicago and director of the college’s Center for Intellectual Property, Information and Privacy.
Grumpy Cat Limited was shaped in 2013 to revenue off the viral movie star of Tardar Sauce, a cat born in April 2012 with feline dwarfism and an underbite.
Her situations gave her the looks of at all times being in a nasty temper. After proprietor Tabatha Bundesen’s brother posted her pictures on-line, she turned a right away hit, racking up views and galvanizing web memes.
Tardar Sauce died in May 2019, by which level the web obsession together with her had largely pale. But the frowning feline nonetheless had merchandising potential, and Grumpy Cat Limited owned the rights. In October of that yr, the corporate filed its first trademark lawsuits in Chicago.
In its latest batch of circumstances, Grumpy Cat Limited wouldn’t disclose the identities of the accused retailers and requested the court docket to additionally preserve them personal. The group was working collectively to hide their identities, the corporate warned — and in the event that they discovered they have been being sued, “the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets.”
Like in earlier such circumstances, Grumpy Cat Limited requested the court docket for an injunction stopping the retailers from promoting counterfeit merchandise. It additionally requested the court docket to disgorge their income — or alternatively, for statutory damages.
Why all of the trademark lawsuits, particularly towards shadowy web retailers that may by no means reply? It’s inconceivable to say for certain: Grumpy Cat’s attorneys did not reply to a request for remark for this story.
In the world of American mental property regulation, although, specialists say authorized aggression generally is a advantage of its personal — signaling to would-be counterfeiters that behind her perpetual frown, Grumpy Cat has enamel.
“It’s a standard observe, and it does have some chilling impact,” King mentioned. Even if some knock-offs proceed, “the IP owner develops a reputation for being litigious, which has a benefit for the company in and of itself.”
In lawsuits against U.S.-based violators, Grumpy Cat has won hundreds of thousands of dollars on trademark claims. In a high-profile case in federal court in California in January 2018, a jury awarded the company $710,001 in damages in a copyright feud over coffee bags.
After the trial, which included an appearance from Tardar Sauce, the company’s attorney said the verdict made his clients feel vindicated. The attorney didn’t comment on how it made Tardar Sauce feel. Judging from her facial expression, she was still grumpy.
From the perspective of court costs and attorneys fees, the lawsuits against small-time and hard-to-find international retailers might seem to make less sense, especially when those cases go nowhere. But even those cases can help prevent counterfeit goods from reaching domestic customers.
Online retailers based abroad might not care what a federal judge here says, but customs officers sure do, said Lawrence Friedman, an attorney with the Chicago-based firm Barnes Richardson Colburn that specializes in trade law cases.
“Customs works closely with trademark holders, many of whom have good intelligence regarding unauthorized exporters and other means of spotting infringing importers,” he said. “Customs can then detain suspect merchandise and require that the importer … prove that the merchandise is genuine.”
“That’s still a win, even if you don’t get your order enforced,” King added in agreement. “You can still stop the offending parts from reaching customers in the U.S.”
In a 2021 report, U.S. Customs and Border Protection bragged it processed more than 420,000 parcels from China every day — finding counterfeit items in “more than 13% of targeted shipments.”
Even still, the system isn’t foolproof. Customs enforcement gets looser for packages under $800, Friedman said — a category that includes most of the goods sold by small-time Grumpy Cat counterfeiters.
“Customs is under pressure to increase enforcement on those products, which are often ecommerce shipments,” he added.
In the meantime, Grumpy Cat has continued its eternal vigil against trademark infringers, bringing lawsuits against anonymous online bootleggers with names like “SecondRegret” (sued December 2020) and “Lichee666 Store” (sued February 2023). Unlike client fraud circumstances, about which federal judges are sometimes hesitant, courts are joyful to assist settle businesses’ mental property disputes, King mentioned.
“If it’s an entity that has an mental property they’ve developed and registered, the courts are affected person with these claims,” she mentioned. That’s excellent news for Grumpy Cat Limited in its whack-a-mole battle towards knock-offs.
Follow @djbyrnes1
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for brand spanking new weekly publication Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, main litigation and sizzling circumstances and rulings in courthouses across the U.S. and the world.
