Injunction and $1M Damages For False Use Of Kosher Certification Symbol

In Chicago Rabbinical Council v. Abdul Rehman Group, Inc., (ND IL, June 9, 2020), an Illinois federal district court awarded statutory damages of $1 million under the Lanham Trademark Act to the Chicago Rabbinical Council ("cRc") in its suit against a company that was without authority applying a cRc logo to its food products, falsely indicating that they had been approved as kosher.  The court also issued a broad injunction barring defendant from using the cRc logo in any way to mislead others into believing that its products were certified by cRc. Kosher Today reports on the decision.

More Rulings In South Carolina Episcopal Church Split

Earlier this week, a South Carolina federal district court issued another opinion in the long-running battle between competing Episcopal Church factions in South Carolina.  While the underlying dispute over which faction owns church property has been litigated in state court, a federal court suit was filed alleging a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. Episcopal Bishop Charles von Rosenberg who heads the minority of congregations in South Carolina that remain loyal to The Episcopal Church sued Bishop Mark Lawrence who heads the larger portion of the congregations that in 2012 broke away from the national church. Von Rosenberg alleged that Lawrence engaged in false advertising by asserting that he remained the Bishop of the Diocese.  In vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, (D SC, April 16, 2018), the court allowed plaintiffs to add as defendants the Diocese, parishes and trustee corporation affiliated with Bishop Lawrence.

In a perhaps more interesting second part of the opinion, the court refused to allow the suit to be expanded to assert a novel breach of trust claim.  Last year, the South Carolina Supreme Court decided the property issue largely in favor of those who remained loyal to The Episcopal Church. (See prior posting.)  Plaintiffs sought to add a claim that "the parishes have breached their fiduciary duties by allowing property held in trust for TEC to be used 'in connection with a denomination' other than TEC."  They sought an order against 28 Parishes "to remove from their vestries any persons who cannot demonstrate to this Court's satisfaction that they are capable of and willing to carry out their fiduciary obligations to The Episcopal Church...."  The court held that it is not "free to use trust law entangle itself with religion like a fly in a spider web."  It continued:

Entry of a judicial order telling 28 congregations whom they may or may not elect to their respective parish vestries would foster excessive judicial entanglement with religion....

Of course, there are other ways for TEC to enforce its property rights. For example, TEC could take legal possession of the parish property held in trust for its benefit, rather than asking a federal court to supervise the local congregation's use the property. 

Charleston Regional Business Journal reports on the decision.

Republication of SPLC Hate Group Label Did Not Violate Lanham Act

The Southern Poverty Law Center  which tracks hate groups in the United States lists Liberty Counsel as an anti-LGBT hate group. GuideStar, an organization that provides information about non-profits to members of the public, picked up SLPC's hate group labels and included them in its descriptions of non-profits. In Liberty Counsel, Inc. v. GuideStar USA, Inc., (ED VA, Jan. 23, 2018), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a suit contending that GuideStar's republication of the hate group label for Liberty Counsel violated the Lanham Act.  The Lanham Act imposes civil liability on any person who "in a commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities ... of ... another person's goods, services, or commercial activities...." The court held that GuideStar's use of SLPC's labels is not commercial speech, and thus is not covered by the Lanham Act, adding:

Defendant's review of Plaintiffs organization would fall under the laws of the First Amendment, not that of the Lanham Ac.... Specifically, Defendant has an expressive right to comment on social issues under the First Amendment.

In a press release announcing the decision, Liberty Counsel said it is considering an appeal.