View a Sample Chapter

§ 4:8 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONRelative Strength. Of central importance is whether the addedmark is dominant or secondary to the mark in issue. 164 For example,where trade dress is in dispute, the consumer may remember theappearance of the product or package but forget the accompanyingword mark. 165 The added mark is more likely to reduce confusion if itmemorable and strong. 166 As explained by the Second Circuit appellatecourt: “We do not mean to intimate that the distinctive elementsof any trade dress may be freely appropriated as long as the junior userclearly identifies the source of the goods. In many cases, the distinctiveelements of a trade dress may themselves be eligible for trademarkprotection. In other cases the trade name may be a less dominantfeature of the entire trade dress and thus have less force in countering164. Worthington Foods, Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 732 F. Supp. 1417, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d1577, 1595–96 (S.D. Ohio 1990) (Morningstar Farms Heartwise Grillers v.Kellogg’s Heartwise); S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Lever Bros., 19U.S.P.Q.2d 1027, 1036 (E.D. Wis. 1991) (MORNING FRESH SNUGGLEv. MORNING FRESH GLADE); Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., 237 F.3d 891, 899,57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1617 (7th Cir. 2001); Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. v.Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (T.T.A.B. 2008) (BASSPRO SHOPS logo “arbitrary and distinctive”; SPORTSMAN’S WARE-HOUSE descriptive).165. Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Arcadia Mach. & Tool, Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1522,1530 (C.D. Cal. 1988); Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc. v. Hamilton Beach, Inc.,18 U.S.P.Q. 1993, 2001 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (effect of label a question of fact);John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 219 U.S.P.Q.515, 528 n.24 (11th Cir. 1983).166. Walter v. Mattel, 210 F.3d 1108, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501 (9th Cir. 2000)(BARBIE); Nabisco v. Warner-Lambert, 220 F.3d 43, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1051(2d Cir. 2000) (prominent use of well-known house brand DENTYNE) (seeillustration, Appendix A8); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C.,Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161, 1170 (2d Cir. 1992) (EXCE-DRIN; TYLENOL); distinguished in Fun-Damental Too Ltd. v. GemmyIndus. Corp., 111 F.3d 993, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1348, 1356 (2d Cir. 1997);Turtle Wax, Inc. v. First Brands Corp., 781 F. Supp. 1314, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d1013, 1023 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (SIMONIZE); Calvin Klein Co. v. Farah Mfg.Co., 229 U.S.P.Q. 795, 799 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (CALVIN KLEIN); Tree TavernProds., Inc. v. ConAgra, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 1263, 231 U.S.P.Q. 260, 266(D. Del. 1986); Taj Mahal Enters. Ltd. v. Trump, 742 F. Supp. 892,15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641, 1645 (D.N.J. 1990) (TRUMP); W.W.W. Pharm. Co. v.Gillette Co., 808 F. Supp. 1013, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609, 1617–18 (S.D.N.Y.1992), aff’d, 984 F.2d 567, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1593 (2d Cir. 1993) (RIGHTGUARD); Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 212U.S.P.Q. 246, 250 (1st Cir. 1981) (POLAROID LAND CAMERA); KnightTextile Corp. v. Jones Inv. Co., 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1313, 1315 (T.T.A.B. 2005)(NORTON MCNAUGHTON); G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., 676 F. Supp. 1436, 1470, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481, 1502–03, 1523(E.D. Wis. 1987) (“strong house mark virtually precludes confusion”), aff’d,873 F.2d 985, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 1813 (7th Cir. 1989).4–38