Some Multinational Corporations Deliberately Frustrate Due Process

It seems like a matter of common sense that if someone regularly and systematically does business within the United States, that person or business should reasonably expect to be summoned or subpoenaed when necessary, either to produce relevant documents, or to produce a witness to testify about a topic only that company knows about.

Such a simple matter of due process seems like a relatively straightforward matter of American civil procedure. It has been largely non-controversial for decades. However, recently, large corporations have gotten strong enough to test the patience (and resources) of litigants, including government officials.

For example, take Amazon and Google.

Amazon has appointed a registered agent for service of process in New York (CT Corporation), so why not just serve Amazon with a subpoena duces tecum?

Apparently, it's not so simple.

An article published on AssociatesMind.com details how Amazon does not typically cooperate with, nor respond to, routine subpoenas for documents.  Amazon allegedly forces all litigants to seek a third party subpoena from the Thurston County Clerk's office in Washington State, where Amazon's headquarters is located.

Such a process is likely to cost a litigant thousands of dollars in legal fees.  Further, if Amazon objects to the scope of the subpoena, an out-of-state litigant would need to retain local counsel in Olympia, Washington, to litigate a motion to compel there.

Amazon's obstructive efforts are no idle threat.  In one criminal case, a Grand Jury sitting in Wisconsin sought a representative sample of used book buyers, in a criminal case involving mail fraud and wire fraud there.

Amazon issued its usual blanket objections, forcing the issue to be litigated in federal court.  Ultimately, the federal government backed down.

The standard response on the Internet was to applaud Amazon's resistance.  But before applauding Amazon's seeming defense of privacy rights, think about the precedent set here...

A legitimately convened Grand Jury had decided that Amazon's documents were relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Amazon was able to hire an army of private lawyers to successfully keep its business records from the Grand Jury.  Despite its claims, Amazon was not interested solely in the pursuit of noble privacy.  Amazon was protecting its business, by telegraphing that it is not held to the same standards of disclosure and due process as everyone else.

Google does the same thing.

Why should wealthy multinational corporations be entitled to use the threat of protracted, expensive litigation to frustrate due process?

Branding A Necessary Evil: Insurance

Benjamin Franklin once wrote that the only certainties in life are death and taxes.  If he had lived in 2015, he might have added a third inevitable evil:  insurance.

Virtually no responsible, self-sufficient adult in America can function without buying some form of insurance policy at some point in their life.  Whether it is private medical insurance, "umbrella" fire and theft insurance for one's home or apartment, life insurance, vehicle or boat insurance (mandatory if you want to register an automobile or motorcycle), business interruption insurance, professional malpractice insurance, the list of available policies goes on and on...

The ostensible purpose of all insurance is to spread risk.  That is, rather than take the risk that your new house might burn down and lose everything, you fork over a few thousand dollars a year, so that if such a horrendous calamity ensues, at least you can buy a new wardrobe.

It is virtually impossible to imagine an adult successfully prospering in our modern society, fully exposed to all attendant economic risks without insurance.

Driving a car into a tree or hitting a pedestrian can easily bankrupt anyone.  Giving birth to a healthy baby in a public hospital without health insurance could now cost well over $10,000.  That is not to even mention catastrophic illnesses.

Fortunately, ever present are private insurance companies, ready to sell you a blanket policy for a reasonable annual premium.

But how do these "necessary evils" brand themselves to differentiate themselves from one another in the marketplace? By credibly advertising that they will pay all reasonable claims without becoming adversarial?  No, not exactly.

Through kitschy commercials, of course.

The GEICO gecko has become ubiquitous.  The redheaded, apron-wearing Flo, as portrayed by actress Stephanie Courtney, has become a mainstay of television.  Cavemen, babies, puppy dogs and talking pigs have all become iconic representatives of an industry that isn't otherwise very popular.

Data provider SNL Financial found Geico had spent about $994 million on advertising in 2011. That was fully 22 percent more than next-largest spender State Farm, even though State Farm’s ad spending grew at nearly three times the rate Geico’s did.

The goal is to grab the attention of consumers who would rather not think about insurance. Experts say most people only ponder policies when they have an accident, buy a new car, move, or renew their existing agreement, which usually happens twice a year, at most. 

Today there are about 187 million insured privately owned vehicles on the road. Turnover is relatively low from year to year — 11% of consumers switch their policies while an additional 20% shop but don’t switch, according to J.D. Power. But that still means more than 20 million people are in the market each year.

But the insurance companies' advertising isn't winning many fans among existing customers.

Ask anyone who has had a claim for storm damage denied by their house insurance company.   In New York, four U.S. Senators accused flood insurance companies of mishandling claims for Hurricane Sandy-related damage, by hiring engineering companies expressly to  underestimate damage from that storm.

Or ask anyone who has had their doctors' bills denied, because a health insurance company has come up with a byzantine set of pre-notification rules that weren't adhered to strictly at 3 a.m. when their child had an asthma attack.

They will wish you good luck trying to collect from the carrier.  

As soon as a claim is filed, some of these same insurance companies that were so cutely advertising their products with ice cream and puppy dogs will hire a team of savvy adjusters and professional litigators to nickel and dime a claimant to death.

But, for now at least, such negative reviews don't seem to be reaching consumers amid the din of talking lizards.

Have California's Likeness Laws Gone Off the Deep End?

An alleged misappropriation of Lohan's likeness

As recently noted by Professor Marc Edelman on Forbes, the civil lawsuit filed by Lindsay Lohan against RockStar games for alleged misappropriation of likeness in Grand Theft Auto V is being watched closely for its impact on the ability of video game makers to utilize public figures' images without offering them compensation.  

NFL players and their financial planners are certainly watching that lawsuit closely, as EA and other video game makers routinely distribute sports-themed games that utilize players' attributes.

Now, the latest lawsuit against Activision for its alleged unauthorized use of Manuel Noriega's likeness in Call of Duty: Black Ops reveals just how warped California's right of publicity laws are becoming, unless they are reined in.

In the 2006 case of Kirby v. Sega, the California Court of Appeals had held that the First Amendment protected Sega's incorporation of certain elements of singer Kierin Kirby into the character Ulala.

According to that court, Sega's use was transformative and thus protected. In contrast, as noted by Professor Edelman, is the same California Appeals Court's 2011 decision in No Doubt v. Activision, because that game supposedly involved "computer-generated recreations of real band members."

The distinction between the cases is not clear.

However, what is clear from the Lohan and Noriega cases is that, unless seriously circumscribed, such lawsuits will proliferate and threaten one of the fastest growing areas of cultural expression: video games.

Without a bright line rule that celebrities and video game makers can understand and apply evenly across cases, every aggrieved "celebrity" such as Noriega and Lohan can (and undoubtedly will) flock to California, and find an aggressive lawyer looking to cash in big on the developing legal theory by filing such complaints against software developers and video game makers.

Such cases are easy to file and difficult to dismiss.  Both the prior Sega and Activision cases involved years of litigation and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Trends in the Intellectual Property Legal Marketplace

One of the most frequent questions that I am asked is what trends I see in the areas of intellectual property, brand protection and the marketplace for legal services.

There are a few interesting, long-term trends in the data worth mentioning, that affect everyone and not just lawyers or those who work in the brand protection and IP industry.  Perhaps the most glaring one is that:

The Cost of Doing Business Globally is Going Down, But the Cost of Protecting Intellectual Property Keeps Going Up

By 2014, the out-of-pocket costs of engaging in global commercial activity have become extremely low.  In fact, they are the lowest they have ever been.

For example, a relatively desirable Internet domain name can be leased for only a few dollars a year.  Using templates and shared hosting, virtually anyone can design and host an e-commerce website very cheaply.

This is a departure from a decade ago, when designing a website required an understanding of HTML and related computer languages, technical knowledge generally limited to IT Departments and computer consulting firms.

Similarly, marketing has become cheap.  Today, by using free e-mail accounts and social media platforms like Facebook, Pinterest, Google+ and Yahoo! for communication and marketing, and low-cost international distribution and shipping channels like eBay, Stamps.com, AliBaba and others, a well-managed small business can conceivably generate hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in only a short amount of time.

Yet the out-of-pocket cost involved in protecting a brand against Intellectual Property theft and infringement, both online and in the brick and mortar context, continues to spiral ever upward.

For example, the high-profile attorneys in the Apple v. Samsung patent wars charged their clients $1,200 per hour.  The hourly billing rates at all the large law firms have reached an all-time high, with many lawyers routinely charging well over $1,000 per hour.

And clients who choose smaller law firms and those firms that offer "flat fee" arrangements may get a better deal, but are not immune from the increased competition for high-quality intellectual property legal services.  

For example, one small law firm in Maryland posted its flat fees online, and notes that it is charging up to $12,000 for filing a provisional U.S. patent application.  An appeal if it is denied could add another $8,000.  That may be less than a large law firm's services, but just filing for a patent is still an expensive proposition.

And of course, that is just the first step in protecting Intellectual Property.  Filing for a patent or trademark is no guarantee that it will be respected by others. 

When infringers are inevitably discovered, commencing and pursuing complex litigation against them routinely costs companies many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Therefore, it is clear that while many are finding it easier and easier to start and develop businesses, they are also finding it more and more expensive to effectively protect their Intellectual Property assets against thieves and infringers.

What does this trend signify?  It would appear that the marketplace is beginning to fully understand that the legal services offered by experienced Intellectual Property lawyers are at a premium, because branding and IP assets in general are as valuable -- if not more valuable -- than traditional ones.

Samsung and Its Outside Counsel Facing Sanctions For Breaching Confidentiality: But Will the Punishment Fit the Offense?

Before Apple and Samsung litigated their now epic patent trial before a federal district court, they were engaged in routine discovery practices, which involved the exchange of the fierce competitors’ highly sensitive licensing information.

To be sure, such disclosure is commonplace and indeed required by discovery in the United States' Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To address the potential mishandling of proprietary and confidential information, parties routinely stipulate to entry of a “Protective Order.”

This stipulation takes the form of a Court Order which allows the parties and their counsel to designate documents and information into categories or tiers.

When documents contain highly sensitive information, such as pricing or key licensing terms, the parties are usually able to mark documents as “Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only,” and file such documents under a strict seal so the public cannot get access through the Court’s docket.

Responsible outside counsel take great pains to respect these orders, often at significant cost and inefficiency. Multiple drafts of the same document must be created and digital firewalls maintained with redactions and password-protected file folders.

These day-to-day procedures involved in handling competitors' sensitive data can be onerous to the parties and their outside counsel litigating these cases, but such measures are viewed as necessary to ensure that litigants feel that their sensitive information is not being acquired by their competitors in the guise of discovery exchange.

In the now famous Apple/Samsung patent case, highly confidential licensing terms were apparently contained in a draft expert report on damages that was forwarded to Samsung’s internal personnel without any redactions whatsoever.

The leak of the confidential information only came to light after the case was effectively over, when Samsung happened to be negotiating a license with third party Nokia.  According to testimony, a Samsung executive told Nokia that he knew the terms of the Apple-Nokia license and was able to recite its terms verbatim during the negotiation.  Nokia told Apple, who demanded a formal investigation.

After a Court-ordered investigation, it turns out that Samsung’s outside counsel had posted a draft of its expert’s report on a client file-sharing site that was accessible by Samsung’s staff, and e-mailed instructions for accessing the site, which included over fifty Samsung employees who were not permitted to access the highly confidential information contained therein.

Samsung's outside counsel has essentially admitted that all of the above did indeed occur, but denies that the violation was intentional. Samsung incredibly argues that no sanctions whatsoever are warranted, despite the harm to Apple and the threat to the integrity of the discovery process.

The Magistrate Judge appears to be mulling what sanctions are appropriate for the apparent violation of the Court’s Protective Order.

Frequently, outside counsel entering into the exchange of sensitive discovery materials during intellectual property litigation are asked by their clients whether to trust that the terms of protective orders are respected by their adversaries.

And the standard response that outside counsel typically give to their clients is supposed to allay their concerns:  Any violations of the Protective Order wil be swiftly punished by the Court, thus deterring misconduct.

But let’s face reality for a moment:  Unless the fines imposed on Quinn Emanuel, Samsung’s outside counsel here, are truly draconian in nature, the misconduct is likely to go largely unpunished.

Quinn Emanuel undoubtedly billed millions upon millions of dollars in legal fees to Samsung for its litigation services, and any fine imposed is likely to be paltry in comparison to the violence such conduct does to the integrity of the discovery process and the commercial harm to Apple.

And, in the event that the fines imposed the Magistrate were truly draconian in nature, what is the likelihood that Judge Koh would enforce them?  The Court has already reduced the damages awarded to Apple against Samsung by the jury from over $1billion to less than half.

Further, even if Judge Koh found the nerve to impose a draconian penalty against the misconduct, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung will inevitably appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  What are the odds that that California-based appellate court would sustain a draconian penalty against Samsung and/or its outside counsel?  Slim to none, I suspect.

Therefore, while Quinn Emanuel very well may have inadvertently violated the Protective Order rather than willfully, parties facing high-stakes intellectual property litigation requiring the exchange of highly sensitive data with competitors would be well advised to consider the risks inherent in litigating against a fierce adversary with all the wrong incentives, in a legal system that is far too tolerant of discovery abuses.

Preliminary Injunction Against MAXIM Deodorant Denied, Court Finds "Insufficient" Harm to the Brand From Unlicensed Use

In a startling decision, a federal court refused to grant a court order against the continued unauthorized use the trademark "MAXIM" to sell antiperspirant, on the basis that the likely consumer confusion and harm to the brand was not sufficiently "irreparable" to justify a preliminary order halting the infringement.

Maxim magazine is a popular mens' "lifestyle" magazine with a circulation of over two million. Maxim magazine's publishers, Alpha Media Group, intend to license the "MAXIM" trademark to a line of body sprays, perfumes and colognes.

Corad Healthcare, Inc. manufactures antiperspirants to treat hyperhidrosis, a medical condition which causes excessive sweating. Corad has used the term MAXIM since 2001, but historically used clinical-looking packaging  on "prescription-strength" medication.

More recently, Corad began to use colorful packaging with "lifestyle" graphics, such as pictograms denoting golf and exercise. Further, Corad's "Maxim" name on its antiperspirant wipes started to look a lot more like Maxim's logo.  Consequently, upon learning of the new packaging, Alpha Media sued Corad, and sought a preliminary injunction.

The Accused Products

The court rejected the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction.  In its decision denying Alpha's motion, the District Court essentially agreed that there was the potential for Maxim's publishers to lose the ability to control its brand through Corad's unlicensed third party use. However, the Court then found that the publishers did not put forth evidence that such a result "will, in fact, occur."

The problem with the court's decision is that it requires a brand owner to prove the impossible until after the damage is already done.

Furthermore, a simple economic analysis demonstrates the flaw in the Court's logic.

It used to be the law that a preliminary injunction should usually issue when the use of a mark creates a likelihood of confusion in the consumers' minds as to the ownership or sponsorship of a product, because a high probability of confusion as to sponsorship almost inevitably establishes irreparable harm.

However, in 2010, in Salinger v. Colting, Judge Calabresi sitting in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, penned a copyright decision finding that "a court deciding whether to issue an injunction must not adopt 'categorical' or 'general' rules or presume that a party has met an element of the injunction standard.

In plain English, Judge Calabresi effectively required that intellectual property owners factually "prove" the impossible, before it occurs:  that they are likely to be harmed by unlicensed third parties abusing their rights.

The reason such factual proof is impossible is not because it is untrue. It is because there is no simple way to measure the harm to a brand before such harm actually occurs. And once that harm occurs, it cannot be recovered. Judge Calabresi is a renowned law and economics scholar who should fully understand this point.

Here is an example:  Suppose Maxim's publishers seek to market and expand their brand to sell antiperspirants.  They set up a meeting with an established company that manufactures and distributes such products (such as Procter and Gamble).

In this hypothetical scenario, P&G would decline to market the Maxim-branded products on the basis that the trademark is already registered and used by Corad.

There is no way to ever calculate with precision the economic "harm" wrought on Alpha by the continued existence of Corad's unlicensed product in the marketplace.  

However, the economic opportunity cost to Alpha is significant:  It cannot meaningfully market a product that was its right to do so until after trial, which could be four years away.

At the conclusion of the lawsuit, a jury might award damages to Alpha Media based upon Corad Healthcare's infringement.

However, as this chart shows, the recovery of Corad's profits does not equal the opportunity cost to Maxim's publishers.  In other words, Alpha loses out on more than Corad actually gains:

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ignored this reality, and effectively would require that intellectual property owners suffer these losses.

The problem is that Corad will never be able to adequately compensate the publishers for the harm it causes to the brand owner.  Such "irreparable injury" is precisely why preliminary injunctions were commonplace when a brand owner could prove a high likelihood of confusion.

Under the new, "non-categorical" standard in the Second Circuit, brand owners must suffer these losses due to no fault of their own.

Canada Goose Sues Sears For Selling "Knockoff" Parkas

Canada Goose, maker of high quality and fashionable parkas, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in a Toronto federal court against Sears Canada, Inc., accusing the department store of selling a 'lower-end' misleading 'knockoff' jacket that is causing consumer confusion.

The Canada Goose design at issue is three quarters length, with a genuine coyote fur-trimmed hood called the "Kensington Parka" that sells for $695.00.  Canadian news reports that the accused Sears jacket sells for $199.00.

Last year, Canada Goose launched a similar trademark infringement lawsuit against Toronto-based International Clothiers, Inc. The parties settled that suit on undisclosed terms. Both disputes center around the of a logo in a circle.

Use of Square Bottle Sparks Trade Dress Lawsuit With Jack Daniel's

Fox News is reporting on a newly-filed trademark lawsuit pending between Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc., a subsidiary of Brown-Forman, the makers of Jack Daniel's whiskey and Defendants J&M Concepts, and Popcorn Sutton Distilling, LLC, a small distiller.

Photo Courtesy of Ann Richardson

Sutton's whiskey is packaged in a very similar square bottle, with angular proportions and dimensions that are clearly reminiscent of the classic Jack Daniels' whiskey bottle.

Sutton's alcoholic beverage is named after a famous moonshiner Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton.  Sutton, known for his long gray beard and overalls, committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning in 2009 rather than go to prison for violating alcohol manufacturing laws.  According to Wikipedia, Sutton received his "Popcorn" nickname after damaging a bar's faulty popcorn vending machine with a pool cue in the 1960's.

Jack Daniel's, produced in Lynchburg, Tennessee, filed the suit in federal district court in Nashville, alleging that the Defendants' use of a square bottle is likely to cause confusion among consumers.

The Complaint further alleges that the Jack Daniel's square bottle has been "a consistent commercial impression" for decades. That packaging is part of "one of the oldest, longest-selling and most iconic consumer products" in U.S. history, the Complaint alleges.

Jack Daniel's specifically describes its claimed "Trade Dress" as a "combination of a square-shaped bottle with angled shoulders that house a raised signature on four sides, and beveled corners, and labeling with a white on black color scheme and filigree designs."

While Jack Daniel's does not own a federally registered trademark on the square bottle shape standing alone, it does own a trademark for the labeling elements of its claimed "Trade Dress."  

The Defendants' website which had been advertising the accused whiskey appears to have been shut down, possibly in response to the filing of the lawsuit.

Trade dress lawsuits involving alcohol bottle shapes are rare, but not unheard of. For example, in 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's dismissal of a case involving a skull-shaped vodka bottle.  In that case, the Court noted that the shape of a skull for a bottle was purely ornamental, served no functional purpose whatsoever and may have garnered sufficient secondary meaning among the consuming public to be identified with its producer.  Further, the Appeals Court noted the availability of many alternative designs to competitors.

Pinterest Sues Travel Planning Startup PinTrips

Social media service Pinterest has filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit in California against travel startup PinTrips.

Pinterest is a pinboard-style photo-sharing website that allows users to create and manage theme-based image collections such as events, interests, and hobbies.  

Users can browse other pinboards for images, "re-pin" images to their own pinboards, or "like" photos.  The popular site was founded by Ben Silbermann, Paul Sciarra, and Evan Sharp.  It is managed by Cold Brew Labs and funded by a small group of entrepreneurs and investors.

Founded in 2011, PinTrips.com is a Santa Clara, California-based startup.  PinTrips claims that it turns the tedious task of planning and coordinating travel into a seamless experience by allowing a user to "bookmark" specific flights from all travel sites you already use, track and compare results on a main dashboard, and collaborate with others.

According to Pinterest, the startup was faced with a challenging business environment, so it deliberately adopted a name to cause confusion with its popular service.  Further, Pinterest alleges that PinTrips deliberately uses a "Pin" button that Pinterest alleges is a knockoff of its "Pin It" button.

The full Complaint is embedded below:

Delay in Resolving ABSOLUT Trademark Dispute Raises Thorny Issues

The Everett, Washington hair salon's name/logo

Self-help guru Napoleon Hill once wrote that "procrastination is the bad habit of putting off until the day after tomorrow what should have been done the day before yesterday."  A number of parties involved in a trademark dispute in the state of Washington may agree with that statement more than they would care to.

According to recent reports, when Jesse Skittrall purchased the small Absolut Hair and Makeup salon in Everett, Washington in 2009, he was informed by Gayle Pratt, the former owner of the salon, that Vodka giant Absolut had sent a formal cease and desist letter in 2005, but didn't follow up on its demand that the salon change its name.

Consequently, Pratt evidently concluded that the matter was not being pursued by the vodka maker, and the hair salon management changed hands.

However, at the end of July 2013, the vodka maker finally followed up, and reportedly gave Skittrall until January 1, 2014 -- 6 months -- to completely change the salon's name, or else face a federal lawsuit for trademark infringement.

Skittrall has appealed to the community to raise money, and appeared on local radio stations, complaining that the vodka company had "come out of nowhere."

On GoFundMe.com, Skittrall apparently seeks as much as $20,000 to fund the name change, but as of today, has raised only $125.  It is not clear why it would cost $20,000 for the business to change its name, but the salon would obviously need new signage, a new website and new business cards.

The Vodka Maker's Trademark

On the crowd funding site, Skittrall claims that "I bought the business with this name and existing signage and was not aware of any trademark issues."

But the former owner disputes Skittrall's characterization, saying that she fully informed him of the unresolved trademark dispute back in 2009.

But what of the vodka maker's apparent delay in following up?

Precedent from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Washington, lays out a clear duty for a trademark owner to act diligently once it has sent a cease and desist letter that has become unresolved.

Otherwise, the trademark owner might face the possibility that its delay in protecting its rights may rise to the level of being "estopped by laches."  The doctrine is sometimes just referred to as "laches," which comes from the French for "laziness."

The Latin phrase "Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit (Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones (that is, those who sleep on their rights))" is often quoted to help explain the doctrine.

In other words, the vodka maker's delay in pursuing the 2005 matter against the hair salon could have led the former and new owners to reasonably infer that the alcohol beverage company had lost interest in protecting its rights in this instance.

To the extent that the salon owners relied upon that delay to their detriment and suffered prejudice, courts may hold that delay against the trademark owner, not the salon.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had said in Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment in 1999:

"Although we have applied laches to bar trademark infringement claims, we have done so only where the trademark holder knowingly allowed the infringing mark to be used without objection for a lengthy period of time. See E–Systems, Inc. v. Monitek, Inc., 720 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.1983). In E–Systems, for example, we estopped a claimant who did not file suit until after the allegedly infringing mark had been used for eight years where the claimant had known of the infringing use for at least six years. See id.; see also Carter–Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,434 F.2d 794, 803 (9th Cir.1970). We specifically cautioned, however, that “had defendant's encroachment been minimal, or its growth slow and steady, there would be no laches.” E–Systems, 720 F.2d at 607; accord Carter–Wallace, 434 F.2d at 803 n. 4."

In this case, the delay would appear to be from 2005 to 2013:  approximately eight years.  There is no clear evidence of progressive encroachment, as the local hair salon appears to be largely the same as it was in 2005, despite having new management.

Furthermore, Washington's statute of limitations may also apply here, which enforces a three year statute of limitations to trade name disputes.

Consequently, the vodka maker may face a problem if the hair salon simply refuses to change its name, and invokes these doctrines in its defense. 

The lingering problem for the salon, of course, is that estoppel by laches is a defense that can only be asserted in a lengthy court proceeding, after factual discovery has been exchanged.  And invoking such equitable defenses obviously costs time and money, and litigation comes with no guarantees.

In conclusion, had all the parties more clearly resolved their original dispute back in 2005, more costly headaches for all involved might have been avoided.