View a Sample Chapter

§ 4:8 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONSponsorship Confusion (see section 1:4.2). Where the goods aredifferent and the case is one of sponsorship, not source, confusion, thepresence of defendant’s house mark on the accused product may notavoid infringement. Consumers might assume that the defendant isusing its own house mark even though the additional mark which isbeing challenged is sponsored by or associated with the plaintiff. 175.1Cost and Type of Product. It is often said that for high price, singlepurchase items, there is little likelihood of confusion where themanufacturer’s name is clearly displayed. 176 Consumer care andsophistication play their part. 177 (See section 6:5.) On the otherhand, labeling “a relatively inexpensive product may do little to avoidconfusion because the average buyer of such items may give littlethought to the purchase.” 178Actual Confusion and Intent to Infringe. These facts militateagainst giving weight to added source indicators. 179U.S.P.Q. 969, 977 (2d Cir. 1981); G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 873 F.2d 985, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 1813 (7th Cir. 1989);Moore Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Rite Aid Corp., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 2024, 2028(W.D.N.Y. 1991), modified, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8130 (1992); Wash.Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 727 F. Supp. 472,14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1307, 1309 (N.D. Ill. 1990); Schmid Labs. v. Youngs DrugProds. Corp., 482 F. Supp. 14, 206 U.S.P.Q. 468, 471 (D.N.J. 1979) (partiesused their respective brand names).175.1. Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 422,102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1693 (6th Cir. 2012). “[T]he presence of a house mark . . .is more significant in a palming off case [where the goods in issue are thesame] than in an association case . . . when the two products [differ but]are related enough . . . one might associate with or sponsor the other andstill use their [sic] own house mark.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).176. Merch. & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Prods. Co., 963 F.2d 628, 22U.S.P.Q.2d 1730, 1736 (3d Cir. 1992) (roofing panels); Fisher Stoves, Inc.v. All Nighter Stove Works, Inc., 626 F.2d 193, 194–95, 206 U.S.P.Q. 961,963 (1st Cir. 1980) (stoves); Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp.,498 F. Supp. 805, 210 U.S.P.Q. 10, 20 (D. Mass. 1980), aff’d, 657 F.2d 482,212 U.S.P.Q. 246 (1st Cir. 1981) (cameras); Vitek Sys., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,Inc., 675 F.2d 190, 216 U.S.P.Q. 476, 479 (8th Cir. 1982) (automatedcomputerized microbial testing instruments); Litton Sys., Inc. v. WhirlpoolCorp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1446, 221 U.S.P.Q. 97, 112 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(contrasting cookies and microwave ovens); Sno-Wizard Mfg., Inc. v.Eisemann Prods. Co., 791 F.2d 423, 230 U.S.P.Q. 118, 122 (5th Cir.1987) (machines for making snowball ice-shaving desserts); Blue Bell Bio-Med. v. Cin-Bad, Inc., 864 F.2d 1253, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1870, 1876 (5th Cir.1989) (hospital medical carts).177. Birtcher Electro Med. Sys., Inc. v. Beacon Labs., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 417, 16U.S.P.Q.2d 1411, 1414 (D. Colo. 1990).178. Artemide SpA v. Grandlite Design & Mfg. Co., 672 F. Supp. 698, 4U.S.P.Q.2d 1915, 1926 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (lamps).179. Tveter v. AB Turn-O-Matic, 633 F.2d 831, 209 U.S.P.Q. 22, 29 (9th Cir.1980).4–42