Angry Chickz, Inc. v. Bosphorus Trade, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-03569
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 20
In Angry Chickz v. Bosphorus, Magistrate Judge Demarchi found Angry Chickz appears entitled to default judgment but required a revised injunction.
Angry Chickz, Inc., Bosphorus Trade, Inc., and Salih Inci. The order favored Angry Chickz on liability and attorney-fee eligibility but required it to submit a revised proposal before the court could resolve the requested injunctive relief.
What happened
In Angry Chickz, Inc. v. Bosphorus Trade, Inc., Angry Chickz accused Bosphorus Trade and Salih Inci of copying its restaurant names, menus, décor, and other design features. It brought federal trademark and trade-dress claims under the Lanham Act and a California common-law trademark claim. Neither defendant appeared, and the clerk entered default against both.
The court concluded that the allegations and evidence supported default judgment on liability for both claims. It found the parties’ restaurant services, names, menus, marketing, and overall appearance sufficiently similar to support likely consumer confusion. The court also concluded that Angry Chickz could seek reasonable attorney fees and that Bosphorus and Inci could be jointly responsible for any relief ultimately ordered.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ruled that the specific proposed injunction was too broad and insufficiently detailed under the federal rules. The court therefore directed Angry Chickz to file a supplemental memorandum and supporting papers addressing the defects; the interim order did not approve the requested injunction.
The detailed version
- Angry Chickz, Inc. v. Bosphorus Trade, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-03569
- Charles Breyer
- June 10, 2024
Background
Angry Chickz, Inc. operates and franchises restaurants serving Nashville hot chicken. It alleged that Bosphorus Trade, Inc., which operates “The Angry Hot Chicken,” and Salih Inci, identified as Bosphorus’s chief executive officer, copied distinctive aspects of Angry Chickz’s branding and restaurant presentation. The alleged similarities included the names “The Angry Hot Chicken,” “Angry Fries,” and “Angry Mac”; similar menu combinations and spice-level descriptions; and similar colors, cartoon-chicken murals, tables, chairs, partially open kitchens, and employee uniforms.
Angry Chickz asserted a claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and a California common-law trademark-infringement claim. The court explained that it construed the Lanham Act claim as one for false designation of origin involving unregistered trademarks and trade dress because the complaint did not allege infringement of Angry Chickz’s two registered marks. Bosphorus and Inci were served, failed to respond, and did not participate in the case. The clerk entered default against both defendants.
Default-judgment analysis
The court applied the seven factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment. It concluded that the factors favored judgment on liability for both claims. For the Lanham Act claim, the court found the allegations sufficient to show use in commerce of marks and trade dress likely to confuse consumers about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the restaurant services. It emphasized that the parties operated similar Nashville hot chicken restaurants in San Jose, used similar names for similar food items, advertised through similar online channels, and had highly similar menus and overall restaurant appearances.
The court also concluded that the alleged trade dress was sufficiently pleaded. Although individual features such as spice levels might be functional, the court considered the combination of the features and concluded that the alleged overall presentation was nonfunctional. It further concluded that Angry Chickz plausibly alleged that the trade dress had acquired distinctiveness through consumer association with Angry Chickz. Because California’s common-law trademark test was substantially the same as the federal test, the court reached the same conclusion for the state-law claim.
Requested remedies
The court concluded that Angry Chickz was entitled to seek injunctive relief under the Lanham Act. It found a presumption of irreparable harm, no adequate legal remedy for continuing use of confusingly similar marks and trade dress, and no sufficient hardship or public-interest reason against an injunction.
However, the court did not approve the specific proposed injunction. It identified four defects:
- The proposal referred to trade dress “as alleged in the Complaint,” rather than describing the protected features in the injunction itself, contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).
- It did not clearly identify and describe the trade-dress elements well enough to give defendants fair notice of their obligations.
- It sought to prohibit conduct described as “disparaging” or “otherwise unfairly competitive,” even though the complaint did not include specific allegations defining that conduct and the proposed injunction did not specify which acts would be prohibited.
- It required transfer of the domain name “theangryhotchicken.com” to Angry Chickz, although the complaint did not request that relief and the court was not persuaded that transfer was necessarily warranted.
The court therefore concluded that Angry Chickz was not entitled to a judgment incorporating that specific injunctive relief. The court also concluded that the record showed an exceptional case under the Lanham Act and that Angry Chickz could recover reasonable attorney fees, subject to a later fee motion. Finally, it concluded that Inci could be held personally liable and that both defendants would be jointly and severally liable for any relief ultimately ordered.
Disposition
This was an interim order. The court stated that Angry Chickz appeared to have established its entitlement to default judgment on the merits, but it directed Angry Chickz to file a supplemental memorandum and any necessary supporting papers addressing the proposed injunction’s defects. The submission was due July 1, 2024, unless Angry Chickz requested more time. The court also directed Angry Chickz to promptly serve the order on the defendants.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.