IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Likelihood of confusion
Subscribe to Likelihood of confusion's Posts

When Analyzing Likelihood of Confusion, It’s Not Just Location, Location, Location

by | Apr 3, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court’s decision finding no infringement that focused on only the geographic distance between the physical locations of the two users without considering the factors bearing on any likelihood of confusion. Westmont Living, Inc. v. Retirement Unlimited, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-2248 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (Niemeyer, Benjamin, Berner, JJ.)

Westmont Living, a California corporation that operates several retirement communities and assisted living facilities on the West Coast, sued Retirement Unlimited, a Virginia corporation that operates retirement communities and assisted living facilities on the East Coast, for trademark infringement. Westmont, which operates and markets its facilities using the mark WESTMONT LIVING, alleged that Retirement opened a new facility using the name The Westmont at Short Pump for services identical to those provided by Westmont.

The district court entered summary judgment for Retirement. The district court acknowledged that many factors are potentially relevant to determining the likelihood of confusion, but it concluded that because the parties’ physical facilities were located “in entirely distinct geographic markets,” as a matter of law “consumer confusion [was] impossible.” The district court based its holding on the Second Circuit’s 1959 decision in Dawn Donut v. Hart’s Food Stores, which held that when parties use their marks in separate and distinct markets, there can be no likelihood of confusion. Westmont appealed.

The Fourth Circuit found that the district court failed to address the parties’ competitive marketing, the locations from which they solicit and draw their customers, the scope of their reputations, and any of the nine factors for determining likelihood of confusion in the Fourth Circuit under its 2021 decision in RXD Media v. IP Application Dev. The Court explained that while not every factor necessarily needs to be considered in the analysis, the district court erred by relying solely on the fact that the parties’ physical facilities were on opposite coasts, without considering the many other factors that might bear on whether Westmont had shown a likelihood of confusion.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s reliance on Dawn Donut, explaining that the case stands for a narrow principle that where businesses use the same mark in physically distinct geographical markets, and their marketing and advertising are confined to those markets, there won’t be a likelihood of confusion. Given increased potential customer mobility, the internet, and the reduced influence of local radio and newspaper advertising, it is far less likely today that two businesses would operate in such physically distinct geographical markets as when the Dawn Donut rule was promulgated. In this case, both parties advertised nationwide on the internet. The Court noted that it may be especially difficult for a casual consumer to distinguish between the two companies when engaging in online research about retirement living, and the physical distance of the parties’ facilities does not eliminate that risk. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s reliance on only the geographic distance between the physical facilities of the two companies [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Zone of Natural Expansion Is a Shield, Not a Sword

by | Mar 27, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision to partially cancel trademarks, ruling that an opposition challenger could not use the zone of natural expansion doctrine to claim priority because the doctrine is strictly defensive. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Brittex Financial, Inc., Case No. 23-1375 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Dollar Financial Group (DFG) is a loan financing and check cashing business that has used the mark MONEY MART since the 1980s. In 2012, DFG expanded and started using the mark in connection with pawn brokerage and pawn shop services. DFG registered MONEY MART for these new services in 2014. Brittex petitioned to cancel the registration on several grounds, including that the registrations were improperly issued in violation of the Lanham Act, which bars registration of a mark that “so resembles . . . a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Brittex has operated pawn shops under the names Money Mart Pawn and Money Mart Pawn & Jewelry since the 1990s and claimed prior common law rights to the MONEY MART mark for pawn services.

The Board ruled in favor of Brittex, finding that Brittex had priority over DFG for pawn services due to its earlier use of the mark. The Board also determined that DFG could not rely on the zone of natural expansion doctrine to establish priority because this doctrine is purely defensive and does not grant a proactive right to register a mark on an expanded line of goods or services. The Board also concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks, given their high similarity and the overlapping nature of the services provided by both parties. DFG appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed that Brittex had established priority because it was the first to use the MONEY MART mark in connection with pawn services. The Court also rejected DFG’s zone of natural expansion argument, reiterating that the doctrine is defensive and cannot be used to establish priority offensively.

The doctrine of natural expansion, as explained in Orange Bang v. Ole Mexican Foods (TTAB 2015), states that:

[T]he first user of a mark in connection with particular goods or services possesses superior rights in the mark as against subsequent users of the same or similar mark for any goods or services which purchasers might reasonably expect to emanate from it in the normal expansion of its business under the mark.

However, the doctrine does not give the senior mark user an offensive or proactive use.

The Federal Circuit also addressed DFG’s argument regarding the doctrine of tacking, which allows trademark holders to make minor modifications to their own mark while retaining the priority position of the older mark. Tacking is generally permitted [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Bull: Historically Generic Term Can Become Non-Generic

by | Mar 20, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Trademark Trial & Appeal Board rulings, finding that a previously generic term was not generic at the time registration was sought because at that time the mark, as used in connection with the goods for which registration was sought, had achieved secondary meaning. Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, Case Nos. 23-1682; -1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

In 2015 Bullshine sought to register the trademark BULLSHINE FIREBULL for its line of “[a]lcoholic beverages except beers.” Sazerac, the owner of the FIREBALL marks used for liqueurs and whiskey, opposed registration. Sazerac argued that the registration of BULLSHINE FIREBULL would likely cause consumer confusion due to its similarity to Sazerac’s FIREBALL marks. Bullshine counterclaimed, asserting that the term “fireball” had become generic and was commonly used to describe a type of alcoholic drink, thus invalidating Sazerac’s claim to exclusivity.

The Board found that the FIREBALL mark was not generic either at the time of registration nor at the time of trial, and that BULLSHINE FIREBULL was not likely to cause confusion with Sazerac’s marks. The Board determined that the FIREBALL mark was “commercially strong but conceptually weak,” that the respective marks of Sazerac and Bullshine were dissimilar when considered in their entireties, and that Bullshine did not act in bad faith in choosing its marks. The Board denied Sazerac’s opposition to the BULLSHINE FIREBULL mark as well as Bullshine’s counterclaim that the FIREBALL mark was generic. Both parties appealed.

Bullshine argued that the Board applied the incorrect legal standard in finding FIREBALL not generic and that consequently, the finding of non-genericness (upon consideration of secondary meaning) was erroneous. Bullshine argued that since “fireball” was a generic term prior to Sazerac’s registration (as both parties agreed), that fact should have precluded Sazerac’s registration, and the Board erred in considering evidence of secondary meaning. Bullshine argued that if a term was generic at any time prior to registration, it remains generic, regardless of how it might be understood at the time of registration (i.e., once generic, always generic). Sazerac argued that the time to assess genericness is at the time of registration. The Federal Circuit agreed with Sazerac.

The Federal Circuit explained that the genericness inquiry is ultimately guided by “what consumers would think at the time of registration,” and that this ruling is supported by the statutory scheme of the Lanham Act. The Court explained that the Lanham Act, in addition to preventing registration of generic terms, also provides for cancellations of marks “[a]t any time,” and even marks with incontestable statuses can be challenged based on genericness. Therefore, Congress intended that the analysis of whether a term is generic can change over time, and Bullshine’s argument was inconsistent with the statute. This conclusion follows from the legal premise that impression of consumers is “necessarily contemporaneous with the time of registration.”

Bullshine cited the 1961 CCPA decision in Weiss Noodle in support of its argument that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dog Toy Maker in the Doghouse (Again) for Tarnishing Jack Daniel’s Marks

by | Feb 6, 2025 |

Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy diluted Jack Daniel’s trademark and trade dress, despite VIP not having infringed those marks. VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., Case No. CV-14-02057-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2025).

This case began more than 10 years ago when VIP filed a declaratory judgment action that its “Bad Spaniels” Silly Squeaker dog toy did not infringe or dilute Jack Daniel’s trademark rights. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and dilution. The district court initially entered a permanent injunction against VIP, finding that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” toy violated and tarnished Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress. VIP appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” was protected expressive speech under the First Amendment. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to VIP on infringement and dilution. Jack Daniel’s appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the heightened protection afforded by the First Amendment does not apply where the contested mark is used as a trademark. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further consideration. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” tarnished and/or infringed Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

On remand, VIP attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s cause of action for dilution by tarnishment, arguing that “the statute amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by enjoining the use of a mark that ‘harms the reputation’ of a famous mark.” Ultimately, the district court did not consider the merits of the constitutional challenge. The district court stated that although it was not precluded from considering VIP’s constitutional challenge, the issue was not properly before the court because VIP had not amended its pleadings to assert the challenge.

The district court assessed dilution by tarnishment using a three-factor analysis of fame, similarity, and reputational harm. With respect to fame, the parties did not dispute that the JACK DANIEL’S mark was famous. Nonetheless, VIP contended that Jack Daniel’s had not shown tarnishment of a famous mark by a “correlative junior mark.” Specifically, VIP argued that the famous JACK DANIEL’S mark correlated with VIP’s “Bad Spaniels,” and VIP’s use of “Old. No. 2” correlated with Jack Daniel’s mark “Old No. 7.” According to VIP, there could be no tarnishment because only the latter was offensive and Jack Daniel’s had not demonstrated that “Old. No. 7” was a famous mark. The district court disagreed with VIP’s correlative mark argument, stating, “it is VIP’s use of Jack Daniel’s marks – on a poop-themed dog chew toy – that Jack Daniel’s claims tarnish its trademarks, not ‘Bad Spaniels’ itself [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Battle of the Bay: It’s Oakland Airport, Not San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the city and county of San Francisco a preliminary injunction enjoining the Port of Oakland from using the name or trademark “San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport” based on the strength of San Francisco’s mark and the proximity of goods and services. City and County of San Francisco v. City of Oakland, Case No. 3:24-cv-02311-TSH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2024) (Hixson, J.)

The city and county of San Francisco own a registered trademark for the SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT covering airport services. The Port of Oakland owns the OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT mark, also covering airport services. Based on a research study, the Port of Oakland contended that there was a lack of awareness among tourists visiting the San Francisco Bay Area, commonly known as the Bay Area, that Oakland is located in the Bay Area. The Port of Oakland notified San Francisco of its intent to rename its airport the San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport. San Francisco objected to the name change as confusingly similar to its trademark. San Francisco sued Oakland and the Port of Oakland for trademark infringement, unfair competition/false designation of origin, and common law trademark infringement. San Francisco also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) to prevent the Port of Oakland from using the name.

Ruling on the PI motion, the district court started with whether the Port’s use of “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport” was likely to cause confusion. Courts in the Ninth Circuit evaluate likelihood of confusion using the nonexhaustive Sleekcraft factors (9th Cir. 1979), which include the following:

  • Strength of the mark.
  • Proximity of the goods.
  • Similarity of the marks.
  • Evidence of actual confusion.
  • Marketing channels used.
  • Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
  • Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark.
  • Likelihood of expansion of the product lines.

San Francisco offered several theories supporting likelihood of confusion. San Francisco argued that the new name implied an affiliation, connection, or association between the Oakland airport (OAK) and the San Francisco airport (SFO). San Francisco also argued that the new name would cause customers to confuse OAK with SFO and cause customers to buy tickets to the wrong airport, which constituted point-of-sale and initial interest confusion.

Addressing the strength of the mark, the district court determined that although San Francisco’s trademark was descriptive, it was commercially strong. The SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT is widely known among travelers and appears on signs in and around the airport. San Francisco has used its trademark for decades and invests millions of dollars annually to promote the SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT trademark. The court found that San Francisco’s brand was routinely ranked among the top 25 airport brands.

In terms of the proximity of the goods, the district court found that the services were identical, as both names were used in connection with an airport and related services.

Turning to the similarity of the marks, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Ghostly Misstep: No Confusion Means No Preliminary Injunction

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

In a trademark case involving an incontestable registration, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling denying the registrant a preliminary injunction (PI) for failure to establish likelihood of confusion. US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie’s Coffee LLC, Case No. 23-2000 (1st Cir. Nov. 15, 2024) (Selya, Barron, Gelpí, JJ.)

In 1892, prosecutors alleged that Lizzie Borden hacked her parents to death in their family home. Borden was acquitted of all charges, leaving the murder unsolved. This mystery made Borden’s ancestral home a travel destination for all intrigued by the legend.

US Ghost Adventures owns a bed and breakfast located at the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River, Massachusetts. Ghost Adventures also owns an incontestable federal trademark on the LIZZIE BORDEN name as used in its services and on its hatchet logo displaying a notched blade.

Miss Lizzie’s Coffee opened a coffee shop next door to the Lizzie Borden House, displaying storefront signage with the words “Miss Lizzie’s Coffee” between a cup of coffee and a stylized hatchet spewing blood. The store also displayed a second sign claiming Miss Lizzie’s as “The Most Haunted Coffee Shop in the World,” with a similar hatchet containing a handle and dramatic blood splatters. Since the opening of Miss Lizzie’s, there has been confusion regarding its affiliation with the Lizzie Borden House.

Ghost Adventures brought a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit against Miss Lizzie’s Coffee in federal district court. Ghost Adventures also moved for a temporary restraining order and/or PI seeking to enjoin Miss Lizzie’s use of either the LIZZIE BORDEN trademark or the hatchet logo in the coffee shop’s trade names, trade dress, and marketing materials.

The district court applied the customary four-part test for PIs. The test typically emphasizes likelihood of success on the merits because if the movant cannot show a likelihood of success, the rest of the factors “become matters of idle curiosity.” The district court determined that Ghost Adventures failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and denied the PI. Ghost Adventures appealed.

The First Circuit reviewed the district court’s finding for clear error and affirmed. The First Circuit agreed with the district court’s assertion that Miss Lizzie’s displays were neither “the trademarked hatchet nor a colorable imitation” of Ghost Adventures’ hatchet display. Further, the Court found that the Miss Lizzie’s mark was not associated with Ghost Adventures’ mark, but rather with the historical story of Lizzie Borden. The Court agreed that both businesses sold different goods to different customers. Similarly, the Court concluded that any consumer confusion was not due to the similarity of their marks but was due to non-trademarked similarities between the businesses: their proximity to one another, the use of Lizzie Borden lore, and customers’ perception of nearby cafés in association with the historical site itself. Ghost Adventures’ mark could not prevent other businesses from using the Lizzie Borden story or from conducting business near the Lizzie Borden House. Moreover, the First Circuit agreed [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Unbranded Brandy: COGNAC Certification Mark Matters, Even in Hip-Hop

by | Aug 15, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a ruling from the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, disagreeing with the Board’s dismissal of Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac’s opposition to a trademark application filed by Cologne & Cognac Entertainment related to a hip-hop record label. Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, Case No. 23-1100 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) (Lourie, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

The certification mark COGNAC is protected by two entities: the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (the interprofessional union of all growers, producers and merchants of COGNAC spirits) and the Institut National des Appellations d’Origine (an administrative agency within the French government) (collectively, the opposers). Unlike a trademark that indicates a single source for a product, a certification mark is used by an entity other than the owner and is typically used to certify regional or other origin-related characteristics of the product (e.g., FLORIDA oranges, DARJEELING tea or GEORGIA peaches). The opposers are responsible for controlling and protecting the common law certification mark COGNAC for brandy manufactured in the Cognac region of France according to particular standards.

The applicant filed a trademark application in March 2019 seeking registration of a composite trademark for Cognac & Cologne Entertainment to be used for hip-hop music and production services.

The opposers opposed that trademark application, claiming priority and arguing both a likelihood of confusion with the COGNAC certification mark and that the applicant’s mark, by creating an association with the COGNAC mark, would likely cause dilution through blurring. In a split decision, the Board dismissed the opposition, finding no likelihood of consumer confusion and no likelihood of dilution. The opposers appealed.

For likelihood of confusion, the opposers argued and the Federal Circuit agreed that:

  • The Board applied the wrong legal standard for “fame,” and its finding that the COGNAC mark was not famous was not supported by substantial evidence.
  • The Board legally erred in analyzing similarities in the parties’ marks, and its allegedly inconsistent findings showed that its conclusion on similarity was not supported by substantial evidence.
  • The Board applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating the relatedness of goods, trade channels and consumers.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision, working through each issue in turn. First, the Court assessed likelihood of confusion, reviewing the Board’s ultimate legal conclusion de novo and underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. The Court analyzed the DuPont factors to assess whether a likelihood of confusion existed.

Fame: DuPont factor five assesses the fame of the prior mark, including sales, advertising and length of use. Fame is not binary, but instead is a spectrum from very strong (i.e., very famous) to very weak. More famous marks have more extensive public recognition and renown and accordingly are afforded a broad scope of protection. The Federal Circuit found multiple reversible errors in the Board’s fame analyses.

The Federal Circuit explained that the first Board error was its requirement [...]

Continue Reading



read more

David-Versus-Goliath Trademark Victory Isn’t Necessarily “Exceptional”

by | Jul 25, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an award of attorneys’ fees for reanalysis, explaining that the district court’s finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act was based on policy considerations rather than the totality of the circumstances. Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1417; -1418 (3rd Cir. July 10, 2024) (Hardiman, Matey, Phipps, JJ.)

Lontex Corporation is a small Pennsylvania business that manufactures and sells compression apparel to professional athletes and the public. Since 2008 it has held a registered trademark for the mark COOL COMPRESSION, which it used in conjunction with its sale of apparel. In 2015, Nike rebranded an athletic clothing line that included a category of “Cool” products designed to reduce body temperature, as well as various fits, including “Compression.” It also began using the words “Cool” and “Compression” together in the names of Nike clothing products sold online and in Nike catalogues. Nike used “Cool Compression” as a product name on tech sheets, which are internal documents used to explain Nike products to employees and third-party retailers.

The following year, upon discovering Nike’s use of the phrase “Cool Compression,” Lontex sent Nike a cease-and-desist letter. Nike’s lawyers directed the company to stop using the phrase “as soon as possible.” Nike took steps to remove the phrase from its website and catalogs but not its tech sheets. Two years later, Nike reached out to its third-party retailers and asked them to stop using “Compression” in product names.

Lontex sued Nike for trademark infringement of its COOL COMPRESSION mark, for contributory infringement based on its supply of “Cool Compression” products to retailers, and for counterfeiting. The district court dismissed the counterfeiting claim, and a jury trial was held on the infringement actions. The jury returned a verdict for Lontex, finding Nike liable for willful and contributory infringement. The jury awarded Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages but declined to award Lontex disgorgement of Nike’s profits.

Post-trial, Nike renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law on fair use, trademark infringement, contributory infringement, willfulness and punitive damages. Lontex moved for disgorgement of profits and trebling of the damages awarded by the jury. The district court granted Lontex’s request for treble damages, increased the compensatory award to $426,000, and separately awarded Lontex almost $5 million in attorneys’ fees after finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Both parties appealed.

As to the willfulness finding, Nike argued that the jury should not have been permitted to infer willfulness solely from its continued use of the mark after it received its cease-and-desist letter. The Third Circuit disagreed, pointing out that not only did Nike adopt the “Cool Compression” phrase without doing a trademark search, it also continued to use the phrase after receiving Lontex’s cease-and-desist letter and being advised by its own legal team to stop using it as soon as possible. The Court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer willful infringement. For similar reasons, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

It’s an Old Tune: Third-Party-Use Evidence From Long Ago Can Support Genericness

by | Jul 18, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in wholesale exclusion of evidence on the issue of genericness. The evidence was offered to show prior use of a trade dress from more than five years prior to an alleged infringer’s first use of a mark. Gibson Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 22-40587 (5th Cir. July 8, 2024) (Stewart, Clement, Ho, JJ.)

Gibson filed trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims against Armadillo Distribution Enterprises in 2019, alleging that Armadillo infringed four of Gibson’s trademarked guitar body shapes, one guitar headstock shape and two word marks. Just before trial, the district court made several evidentiary rulings on the parties’ motions in limine, including one in which Gibson sought to exclude all arguments and evidence related to advertisements or sales of third-party guitars before 1992, arguing they had limited probative value and were unduly prejudicial. Gibson argued that any third-party-use evidence should be restricted to a five-year period from 1992 to 1997. In its first exclusion order, the district court found that evidence of third-party use was relevant to determining whether a mark was generic or unprotectable but concluded that the probative value of the evidence from before the 1990s was low and found that the five-year cutoff date was reasonable. Armadillo objected to that ruling, leading to oral argument and a second exclusion order upholding the first order. The district court relied on Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 403 and the 2018 Federal Circuit ruling in Converse v. International Trade Commission to support this wholesale exclusion of evidence prior to 1992.

The parties proceeded to trial in mid-2022. A jury found that Armadillo infringed all of the trademarks other than one word mark and found that Armadillo marketed counterfeits. Armadillo appealed based on the district court’s exclusion of decades of third-party-use evidence. Armadillo asserted that this evidence was central to Armadillo’s counterclaim seeking cancellation of the marks and its main defense of genericness.

The Fifth Circuit first considered the district court’s reliance on Converse and determined that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the third-party evidence predating 1992. Armadillo argued that reliance on Converse was error because that case concerned secondary meaning and not genericness. Gibson countered that genericness and secondary meaning are closely related issues and that the five-year period predating infringement is the most logical measuring line. Alternatively, Gibson argued that 15 U.S.C. § 1064 would bar evidence predating 1992 because it provides that a petition to cancel a mark’s registration must be filed within five years from the date of registration of the mark.

The Fifth Circuit found that Converse did not rule that third-party-use evidence from more than five years prior to the alleged infringer’s first use was irrelevant to the issue of genericness and did not compel a strict five-year limitation of third-party-use evidence. The Court further reasoned that under Converse, evidence of prior use is relevant if such use was likely to have [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Smart Choice: Survey Design Didn’t Render Survey Unreliable

by | Jul 18, 2024 |

Underscoring its faith in a jury’s competency to use its “common sense and experience” in evaluating evidence, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in a trademark infringement action following a trial, as well as its order partially denying the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. BillFloat, Inc. v. Collins Cash, Inc., Case Nos. 23-15405; -15470 (9th Cir. July 1, 2024) (Thomas, McKeown, Christen, JJ.)

BillFloat and Collins Cash both provide financing to small businesses. In 2013, BillFloat began using SMARTBIZ as a trademark and registered the mark in 2014. That same year (2014), Collins Cash began using the mark SMART BUSINESS FUNDING, although it did not file an application to register the mark until 2020. Meanwhile, in 2018, BillFloat and Collins Cash entered into a partnership agreement under which Collins Cash would refer current and prospective customers to BillFloat in exchange for a referral fee. The parties’ agreement stated that “[i]f either Party employs attorneys to enforce any right arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

In 2020, upon learning of Collins Cash’s use of the SMART BUSINESS FUNDING mark, BillFloat brought claims for federal and state trademark infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition and unlawful business practices. The district court granted summary judgment to Collins Cash on the breach of contract claim and proceeded to trial on the trademark infringement claim.

Collins Cash engaged an expert to conduct a likelihood of confusion survey using the so-called “Squirt” methodology, which is used for lesser-known marks. BillFloat filed a motion to exclude the expert and his survey from trial, arguing that various errors made the survey unreliable and therefore inadmissible. The district court denied the motion and admitted the expert’s testimony and his survey. The district court also admitted testimony from BillFloat’s expert that challenged the survey. Both experts were cross-examined on their qualifications and on the merits of the survey.

The jury found that BillFloat had not established trademark infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Post-trial, BillFloat moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and Collins Cash moved for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. The district court denied BillFloat’s motion and awarded Collins Cash attorneys’ fees under the partnership agreement for the breach of contract claim but declined to award Collins Cash attorneys’ fees for the trademark infringement claim or non-taxable costs for either claim. Both parties appealed.

BillFloat argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Collins Cash’s expert testimony and survey evidence. It also argued that the district court erred in declining to give BillFloat’s proposed jury instruction not to draw any inferences about the fact that BillFloat did not offer its own survey evidence.

The Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion on these issues. The Court pointed to the distinction between the admissibility of survey evidence as opposed to the relative weight a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES