ILNews

Security software maker loses trademark case against Warner Bros.

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Plymouth, Indiana-based security software maker that sued Warner Bros. after the movie “The Dark Knight Rises” referred to hacking software as “clean slate” lost its trademark infringement case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The company, which has a program called “Clean Slate,” claimed its sales dropped after the movie came out.

The issue on appeal is “reverse confusion” – the movie’s use of the words “clean slate” could cause consumers to be confused about the source of Fortres Grand’s software. The federal court in South Bend held that the company failed to state several claims, including a reverse confusion claim.

Fortres Grand’s security software “Clean Slate” allows user changes to a shared computer to be wiped away to keep the computers free of private data. In “The Dark Night Rises,” Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, tried to get a software program referred to as “the clean slate” to erase all traces of her criminal past. Two websites were also created for marketing purposes purporting to be affiliated with the fictional Rykin Data Corp. that contained information of the clean slate hacking tool.

To succeed on its claim, Fortres Grand must plausibly allege that Warner Bros.’ use of the words “clean slate” in the movie has caused a likelihood that consumers will be confused into thinking Fortres Grand’s software is connected to the movie studio.

Judge Daniel Manion in Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 13-2337, noted there is little authority on how to treat the “similarity of the products” factor when one of them is fictional when using a seven-factor test to determine likelihood of confusion.

The judges decided to compare Fotres Grand’s software with Warner Bros.’ movie.

“Fortres Grand has alleged no facts that would make it plausible that a super-hero movie and a desktop management software are ‘goods related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a single producer is likely to put out both goods,’” Manion wrote, citing McGraw-Edison v. Walt Disney Prods., 787 F.2d 1163, 1166 (7th Cir. 1986).

“While the use of (clean slate) may be suggestive for security software, its use descriptively (and suggestively) is quite broad, including in reference to giving convicted criminals fresh starts, to redesigning the internet, or, indeed, to a movie about an investigator with amnesia,” Manion wrote, referring to the 1994 movie “Clean Slate.” “Accordingly, Warner Bros.’ descriptive use of the words ‘clean slate’ in the movie’s dialogue to describe a program that cleans a criminal’s slate is unlikely to cause confusion.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT