<body><div><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1yxrXY_0uzkNZfa00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1yxrXY_0uzkNZfa00" width="400" height="540" ><p>LANSING, Ill. (August 16, 2024) – “For reasons that remain inscrutable, the Lan-Oak Park District (‘Plaintiff’ or the ‘Park District’), has chosen to sue Lansing’s small, independent newspaper, The Lansing Journal LLC (‘The Journal’), for using an image of a well-known Lansing edifice — a clock tower (‘Clock Tower’) that stands in the center of town.”</p><p>This is the opening sentence of the motion to dismiss filed by Attorney Andrew Schapiro and Marissa Medansky (pro hac vice forthcoming) of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &amp; Sullivan, LLP on behalf of The Lansing Journal earlier today.</p><p>The motion is The Journal’s response to the lawsuit filed by the Lan-Oak Park District in June.</p><h2>The lawsuit</h2><p>The lawsuit asserts that The Lansing Journal improperly used an image of the village’s landmark clock tower, which the Park District says it has trademarked, claiming “a blatant and intentional infringement of the Park District’s intellectual property rights.”</p><p>The lawsuit, originally filed in state court and then moved to federal court, also alleges that The Lansing Journal’s use of the clock tower image on its website and merchandise could confuse people into thinking that the newspaper is affiliated with or endorsed by the Park District. The Park District’s claims include trademark infringement and unfair competition under both state and federal laws.</p><h2>The motion to dismiss</h2><p>In its motion, The Lansing Journal argues that the Park District’s claims are baseless and that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The Journal points out that the image in question is a photo of the actual clock tower, not the specific logo design that the Park District registered as a trademark: “The image is not one created by Plaintiff, nor does Plaintiff assert infringement of any copyright. Instead, Plaintiff appears to be claiming that its Illinois trademark of a particular rendering of the Clock Tower precludes anyone from using any image of one of the town’s most recognizable structures.”</p><p>The Park District did not include with their complaint an image or written description of the logo they claim has been misappropriated, making it difficult to compare the Park District’s logo with the images used by The Journal. The motion points out that “It is not even clear from the [complaint] that the mark is in use at all,” explaining, “That Plaintiff sometimes has used an image of the Clock Tower to market its programming, does not mean it has been used <i>as a mark.</i>”</p><p>The Lansing Journal’s motion further argues that the Park District has not provided any evidence that people are actually confused by The Journal’s use of the clock tower image.</p><h2>Four allegations</h2><p>The Park District’s Complaint asserts four counts:</p><ol><li>Plaintiff alleges that The Journal has violated the Illinois Trademark and Protection Act (“TRPA”) by infringing Plaintiff’s trademark.</li><li>Plaintiff alleges The Journal has violated the federal Lanham Act’s prohibition against false designation of origin.</li><li>Plaintiff alleges The Journal has violated the Lanham Act’s prohibition against unfair competition.</li><li>Plaintiff alleges that The Journal has violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“IUDTPA”) by falsely describing and/or representing The Journal’s business or products.</li></ol><h2>Four reasons to dismiss</h2><p>The Lansing Journal’s motion requests that the court dismiss all four counts of the lawsuit:</p><ol><li>Counts I, II, III, And IV Require Dismissal Because Plaintiff Alleges No Plausible Likelihood Of Confusion</li><li>Counts II, III, And IV Require Dismissal For Failure To Allege Plaintiff’s Mark Is Protectable</li><li>Counts II And IV Require Dismissal For Failure To Satisfy Rule 9(b) — “‘In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.’”</li><li>Count III Requires Dismissal Because No Such Claim Exists — “There is no such thing as a standalone unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act.”</li></ol><p>The Journal’s submission “respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its totality pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b).”</p><h2>Next steps</h2><p>Already Thursday afternoon, the judge in this case — the Honorable Steven C. Seeger — set the following schedule for next steps:</p><ul><li>Plaintiff’s response is due by September 12, 2024.</li><li>Defendant’s reply is due by September 26, 2024.</li></ul><p>Ultimately, it will be Judge Seeger’s decision whether to:</p><ol><li>Dismiss the suit outright</li><li>Dismiss the lawsuit but give the Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a new complaint addressing any deficiencies in the original</li><li>Dismiss some of the claims but not others</li><li>Deny the motion to dismiss and proceed to trial</li></ol><p>The publicly filed motion to dismiss prepared by Schapiro and Medansky is available as a downloadable PDF on the Journal’s website: Motion to Dismiss, filed August 15, 2024.</p><p>Schapiro and Medansky have been representing The Lansing Journal pro bono. No donor funding or advertiser revenue has been spent on this lawsuit.</p></div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Lansing Journal files motion to dismiss Lan-Oak Park District’s Clock Tower lawsuit

LANSING, Ill. (August 16, 2024) – “For reasons that remain inscrutable, the Lan-Oak Park District (‘Plaintiff’ or the ‘Park District’), has chosen to sue Lansing’s small, independent newspaper, The Lansing Journal LLC (‘The Journal’), for using an image of a well-known Lansing edifice — a clock tower (‘Clock Tower’) that stands in the center of town.”