Haas Automation, the CNC tooling company owned by Gene Haas, has suffered a legal setback in its trademark dispute with former Haas F1 team principal Guenther Steiner.
A US judge has dismissed the company's infringement claims against Steiner and his autobiography, Surviving to Drive.
In May, Haas Automation filed a lawsuit alleging that Steiner had used Haas branding and trademarks in his book without proper authorization.
The company took particular issue with photographic material used in the book, including the front cover, which it claimed infringed on its federally registered trademarks.
Haas Automation further contended that the book was being sold "in violation of [the company's] exclusive intellectual property rights", and that of January this year it had "generated revenue of at least $4,500,000”. Substantial damages were therefore being sought.
Steiner, however, argued that his use of Haas logos fell under the category of fair use and was protected by the First Amendment.
The California judge agreed, ruling that the logos were artistically relevant to the book and did not explicitly mislead readers. This decision, based on the Rogers test, which is commonly used in trademark law, effectively dismissed Haas Automation's claims.
Furthermore, United States District Court Judge, the Honorable André Birotte Jr., notes that the book "details Steiner's experience as Team Principal of the Haas F1 Team.”
"That necessarily requires him to mention the Haas name. As many sports biographies do, it includes photographs of the season, which will undoubtedly show the Haas marks."
The defeat marks a significant blow for Haas Automation, which had sought to protect its intellectual property rights.
"The Book recounts Steiner's experiences as principal team of the Haas F1 Team during the 2022 season," the court documents stated.
"Using photos that include the Haas marks is an artistic choice to provide additional context about the 2022 season with the Haas F1 Team.
"Here, there is no explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement that the 'source of the work' is Haas Automation.
"While there's an argument the photo on the cover implicitly suggests endorsement or sponsorship, there is no explicitly misleading statement or suggestion by way of the Haas marks.
"Accordingly, defendants' use here of the Haas marks is protected under Rogers. Defendants' motion is therefore granted."
The defense requested reimbursement of its legal fees from Haas Automation, but the motion was denied as Haas' complaint was considered "objectively reasonable."
Unfortunately, the bad blood between Haas and Steiner extends to a second legal case involving the two parties in the courts of North Carolina, the F1 team's state of residency.
The case, which isn't expected to be resolved until next year, centers on Steiner's claims of unpaid commissions and the unauthorized use of his likeness in promotional materials.
Steiner alleges that Haas violated the terms of their employment agreement during his tenure as principal team.
Keep up to date with all the F1 news via Facebook and Twitter
