Lucid Motors is stuck in a fight over the name of its Gravity SUV

[Worldwide Beagle]

What do you think of the merits of Gravity Inc's case? Were they trademarked in sufficiently different businesses to allow Lucid to keep the name for their SUV?

See my response and @Babyrocko1908 excellent response, above.

IMHO, Google sat on its hands. Ignored Lucids TM application for Gravity, then years later, it said: "Gravity is a cool name, shit, Lucid took it, let's rewrite history."

 

[Unmutual]

And Lucid is represented by Quinn Emanuel, so I would expect Inc. will get a good beat-down.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

And Lucid is represented by Quinn Emanuel, so I would expect Inc. will get a good beat-down.

I'm not familiar with their "game" as they say. Tell me more about this firm. Powerhouse?

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I was waiting on your expert opinion on this and as usual, you didn't disappoint. That laches defense is the dagger in my opinion. What would you raise and/or advise your client as a defense to Lucid's latches defense?

Actually, I think there is "now" a risk of confusion in the market place. But so what. Lucid has legal right to rely on the USPTO TM approval, which it did to its detriment. I always find USPTO examiners to bend over backwards looking for possible confusion. He or she DID NOT with the Lucid application. That's telling.

Back to your question on laches. It's an amazing concept we all learned in school. Makes total logical sense. Use it or loose it. The was a time I litigated in federal courts full time, as an Asst AG. I must have cited laches a hundred times. But in my career, I have never had a judge cite Laches as the decision reasoning.

But US TM law is not like civil law. I am constantly filing USPTO updates and proof of continued use on my clients TMs. And TM law may be one of the few areas where failure to vigorously defend your TM rights is legally significant and can be determinitive to loosing a TM.

Sorry, no good answer for Gravity Inc. It screwed up. Now coming up excuses.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I'm not familiar with their "game" as they say. Tell me more about this firm. Powerhouse?

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

One of the best sophisticated busines litigation law firms in the country, and world. Nothing but litigation. And IP is their specialty.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Actually, I think there is "now" a risk of confusion in the market place. But so what. Lucid has legal right to rely on the USPTO TM approval, which it did to its detriment. I always find USPTO examiners to bend over backwards looking for possible confusion. He or she DID NOT with the Lucid application. That's telling.

Back to your question on laches. It's an amazing concept we all learned in school. Makes total logical sense. Use it or loose it. The was a time I litigated in federal courts full time, as an Asst AG. I must have cited laches a hundred times. But in my career, I have never had a judge cite Laches as the decision reasoning.

But US TM law is not like civil law. I am constantly filing USPTO updates and proof of continued use on my clients TMs. And TM law may be one of the few areas where failure to vigorously defend your TM rights is legally significant and can be determinitive to loosing a TM.

Sorry, no good answer for Gravity Inc. It screwed up. Now coming up excuses.

And what about defense #2 the unclean hands? My thinking here is Gravity, Inc. can possibly argue that they were attempting to "negotiate" a settlement before filing the lawsuit. My one complaint about Lucid's answer is that I wish they would have given an example of Gravity, Inc.'s attempt to "extort money or other gain." This is one hell of a claim to put in a pleading.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

One of the best sophisticated busines litigation law firms in the country, and world. Nothing but litigation. And IP is their specialty.

Explains why Lucid warned it could get costly and it also explains the beat down of Gravity, Inc. in this answer.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Explains why Lucid warned it could get costly.

Compared to Quinn, my rates are a damn bargin. Top NYC litigation is over $2000 an hour.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

And what about defense #2 the unclean hands? My thinking here is Gravity, Inc. can possibly argue that they were attempting to "negotiate" a settlement before filing the lawsuit. My one complaint about Lucid's answer is that I wish they would have given an example of Gravity, Inc.'s attempt to "extort money or other gain." This is one hell of a claim to put in a pleading.

You may know this, and any litigator on the forum will say: there are many weird esoteric defenses a defendant MUST raise in its answer or it may loose the right to bring them later. Called Affirmative Defenses. Laches, unclean hands, respondiot superior, failure to mitigate, standing.

So defense lawyers raise almost every damn one on the onset to be safe. And then remove the non-applicable ones closer to trial. Malpractice not to do that.

Unclean hands is just like Laches. We all learned about. Ancient principle. I have raised it a thousand times. Just to be safe. Never fully litigated it. Never had a judge rule on it. I don't have a freaking clue what the legal standard you must meet to win on it. And since it's so subjective, could be a basis for appeal.

This fall, I was part of a three week trial with real solid claims of Laches and unclean hands. The defendent first raised duress 9 years after contract signing and after he made $2M. In the court's finding,he wisely never touched Laches or unclean hands. Didn't need to. he simply found the contract valid. And enforceble.

Sorry for the long answer. But unclean hands is not an affirmative defense you want to bet the farm on.

 

[hmp10]

The hoped-for strength of Lucid's case notwithstanding, how long might a legal resolution of this issue take?

If not before the vehicle enters production, is it safe or wise for Lucid to stick with the Gravity name, as some of the hardware is planned to bear that name (the D pillars, the lower lip on the front grill)?

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

The hoped-for strength of Lucid's case notwithstanding, how long might a legal resolution of this issue take?

If not before the vehicle enters production, is it safe or wise for Lucid to stick with the Gravity name, as some of the hardware is planned to bear that name (the D pillars, the lower lip on the front grill)?

1. Do not know. Trying to undo a official TM is not easy. I would think the burden of proof is all on Gravity Inc. I am sure there are possible federal court appeals. I am sure there are experienced IP lawyers on here who cam opine. I do TMs and I am a litigator. But I do not litigate IP or TMs. It's really specialized.

2. Another good question. I am sure the attorneys are having Lucid do a benefit cost analysis. My uneducated guess is that Lucid is too far along. If this was 2 years ago, the equation world be different. So many possibilities. Not just $$. The realm of solutions in IP litigation is quite varied. I have seen a plaintiff with a good case settle with a TM infringing defendant by offering to pay for reprinting stuff. Cheap fix for all. In light of the brand recognition for Gravity, I doubt it's an option here.

Still,in light of the money, long term investments, size and sophistication of the parties, I find this all mind boggling.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

You may know this, and any litigator on the forum will say: there are many weird esoteric defenses a defendant MUST raise in its answer or it may loose the right to bring them later. Called Affirmative Defenses. Laches, unclean hands, respondiot superior, failure to mitigate, standing.

So defense lawyers raise almost every damn one on the onset to be safe. And then remove the non-applicable ones closer to trial. Malpractice not to do that.

Unclean hands is just like Laches. We all learned about. Ancient principle. I have raised it a thousand times. Just to be safe. Never fully litigated it. Never had a judge rule on it. I don't have a freaking clue what the legal standard you must meet to win on it. And since it's so subjective, could be a basis for appeal.

This fall, I was part of a three week trial with real solid claims of Laches and unclean hands. The defendent first raised duress 9 years after contract signing and after he made $2M. In the court's finding,he wisely never touched Laches or unclean hands. Didn't need to. he simply found the contract valid. And enforceble.

Sorry for the long answer. But unclean hands is not an affirmative defense you want to bet the farm on.

See this is the perfect illustration of the major differences between teaching the law and practicing the law. More useless nonsense they teach us in law school that is rarely used in actual litigation.

This is why I value your legal expertise and actively seek it in these legal discussions.

 

[PhotoEye]

See this is the perfect illustration of the major differences between teaching the law and practicing the law. More useless nonsense they teach us in law school that is rarely used in actual litigation.

This is why I value your legal expertise and actively seek it in these legal discussions.

Lucid can always buy "Inc."

 

[hmp10]

In light of the brand recognition for Gravity, I doubt it's an option here.

That's my concern here. The Gravity is such an important product for Lucid in bringing the brand more into the mainstream and is being so closely watched by the auto press that any kerfuffle over naming the vehicle that casts Lucid in a less-than-prepared light is going to sting reputation-wise. Lucid has already said that this fight, besides incurring direct costs, could also impair the goodwill of the company . . . and that's the last thing they need on the balance sheet right now.

My gut tells me that, even if it means gritting your teeth at the unfairness of it all, Lucid might be better to rename the project sooner rather than later. We're probably nine months from first deliveries. They need to get this behind them now so that it doesn't become the headline as orders open up and deliveries begin. And courts are not in the business of now.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

See this is the perfect illustration of the major differences between teaching the law and practicing the law. More useless nonsense they teach us in law school that is rarely used in actual litigation.

This is why I value your legal expertise and actively seek it in these legal discussions.

You are far too nice. It's not so much expertise as just doing it a long time. Very. You see how the system works. some affirmative defenses are bullet proof, like res judicata and standing. Law based. It's the equitable type defenses that I find courts loathe to use; Laches. How long is too long? I find it fascinating. Judges do not.

 

[Knucklehead]

Personally, I don't care what they call it. I just want to see two things:
1. A vehicle I actually want to purchase (so far, it is), and
2. A vehicle that allows Lucid to turn a profit, so they survive as a car company.

Neither one depends on the name of the vehicle.

 

[Unmutual]

Compared to Quinn, my rates are a damn bargin. Top NYC litigation is over $2000 an hour.

I retired 4 years ago so never got over $1200 ....

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Personally, I don't care what they call it. I just want to see two things:
1. A vehicle I actually want to purchase (so far, it is), and
2. A vehicle that allows Lucid to turn a profit, so they survive as a car company.

Neither one depends on the name of the vehicle.

Very well said. A rose by any other name...

Someone buying a RS6 or M8 will debage it anyway.

 

[no gas]

Can they switch to GravitE? Would this still be an issue? Not that Lucid should, just curious.

 

[hmp10]

Personally, I don't care what they call it. I just want to see two things:
1. A vehicle I actually want to purchase (so far, it is), and
2. A vehicle that allows Lucid to turn a profit, so they survive as a car company.

Neither one depends on the name of the vehicle.

I respectfully disagree, even though I personally don't care what the SUV is called, either. The point will not be what the model is named, but why the company could not avoid legal pitfalls in picking the name. It conveys a naivety or, worse, a sense of incompetence in running a company, whether fairly or not.

Relatively few car buyers really dig into the details about a car the way that owners on this forum tend to. They will not understand the towering assemblage of engineering talent at Lucid. Most buyers go by brand reputation, price, features, and familiarity manifested by the ubiquity of the cars on the roads. Some might go a bit further to read or scan what the big-name reviewers say about the car and the company. But that hasn't been an entirely rosy picture outside the driving performance-oriented sources. There's another thread running right now about how Edmunds -- a very popular research/review site with many car buyers -- trashes the car by doing things such as pitting a Lucid on 19" all-season tires against an Acura NSX on fat summer rubber and then pronounces the Lucid deficient in braking and handling. Or Consumer Reports that pronounces Lucid a poor value for the money. And then there are the stories about the hot mess that Electrify America has been for many users and how deficient the CCS network in general is.

Outside the circle of people who follow the car press closely, Lucid has very little brand reputation at this point -- and a lot of the reputation they do have derives from the miserable software performance of the first year of production. There were way, way too many legitimate stories of people being locked out of their cars, for example, or being stranded when the car randomly demanded a PIN that no one could remember. And there are very few Lucids on the road to create the sense of familiar comfort with a brand one sees so many others drive.

If anywhere near the time of launch Lucid is drawing press attention for having not been able even to pick a name for the car that could clear legal hurdles -- coupled with recurrent coverage about whether the company can survive -- many people who might consider the car for its design and engineering chops might just move on instead, particularly as the EV SUV segment is growing month by month.

If Lucid can sell their SUV only to people who are already familiar with the brand, who dig into its engineering virtues, and are consequently fans of it, then the company is on the skids out.