FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network
626 F.3d 509 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A trademark owner who fails to exercise adequate quality control over a licensee's use of the trademark engages in 'naked licensing,' which results in the abandonment of the trademark rights.
Facts:
- Deron Beal founded The Freecycle Network (TFN), a non-profit organization that facilitates local 'freecycling' groups through an online network.
- TFN permitted its member groups to use its trademarks: FREECYCLE, THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, and a logo, to identify their affiliation with TFN.
- In October 2003, Lisanne Abraham independently founded FreecycleSunnyvale (FS), a local group in California, without TFN's knowledge or involvement.
- Abraham emailed Beal asking for a logo. Beal responded via email, granting permission to use the logo with the sole instruction 'just don’t use it for commercial purposes.'
- This email was the only direct written communication regarding trademark use between TFN and FS before the dispute.
- TFN later established a 'Keep it Free, Legal & Appropriate for All Ages' rule for its groups, but its definition and enforcement varied significantly from group to group.
- In November 2005, TFN sent FS cease-and-desist emails and then requested that Yahoo! terminate FS’s online group, alleging trademark infringement.
Procedural Posture:
- FreecycleSunnyvale (FS) filed a declaratory judgment action against The Freecycle Network (TFN) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal trial court).
- TFN filed counterclaims against FS for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- FS moved for partial summary judgment, arguing TFN had abandoned its trademarks through naked licensing.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FS, holding that TFN had abandoned its trademark rights.
- TFN, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. FS is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trademark owner engage in naked licensing and thereby abandon its trademark rights when it fails to retain contractual control, exercise actual control, or reasonably rely on the licensee's own quality control measures?
Opinions:
Majority - Callahan, Circuit Judge
Yes, a trademark owner engages in naked licensing and abandons its rights by failing to exercise adequate quality control. The court found that TFN engaged in naked licensing because it failed all three prongs of the quality control test. First, TFN had no express license agreement and thus no contractual right to inspect or supervise FS's services. Second, TFN failed to exercise actual control; its etiquette guidelines were voluntary, its 'Freecycle Ethos' promoted local variation rather than consistency, and its main rule was adopted after the license was granted and was not uniformly enforced. Third, TFN could not reasonably rely on FS’s own quality control because the parties did not have the required 'close working relationship,' as their only direct contact regarding the trademark was a single, brief email exchange.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that trademark licensors have an affirmative duty to police the quality of goods or services offered under their marks, even within informal or non-profit structures. It establishes that merely providing loose guidelines or relying on a shared ethos is insufficient; a licensor must maintain either contractual rights of control, a system of actual control, or a close working relationship that justifies reliance on the licensee's own standards. The ruling serves as a stark warning to trademark owners that failure to actively manage their licensees can result in a complete forfeiture of their trademark rights through abandonment.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"