swatch v beehive

8/13/2019 SWATCH v BEEHIVE

1/26

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 12-2126

SWATCH AG ( SWATCH SA) ( SWATCH LTD. ) ,

Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant ,

v.

BEEHI VE WHOLESALE, LLC, a l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y company,

Def endant - Appel l ee.

Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi str i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Al exandr i a. Li am O Grady, Di str i ctJ udge. ( 1: 11- cv- 00434- LO- J FA)

Ar gued: Oct ober 30, 2013 Deci ded: J anuary 7, 2014

Bef ore NI EMEYER, KI NG, and DUNCAN, Ci r cui t J udges.

Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Duncan wr ote t he opi ni on,i n whi ch J udge Ni emeyer and J udge Ki ng j oi ned.

ARGUED: J ef f r ey A. Li ndenbaum, COLLEN I P, I NTELLECTUAL PROPERTYLAW, P. C. , Ossi ni ng, New Yor k, f or Appel l ant . Wi l l i am J er omeUt er mohl en, OLI FF & BERRI DGE, PLC, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f or

Appel l ee. ON BRIEF: Thomas P. Gul i ck, COLLEN I P, I NTELLECTUALPROPERTY LAW, P. C. , Ossi ni ng, New Yor k, f or Appel l ant . J ames A.Ol i f f , OLI FF & BERRI DGE, PLC, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f orAppel l ee.


2/26

2

DUNCAN, Ci r cui t J udge:

Appel l ant Swat ch AG br i ngs t hi s act i on seeki ng r ever sal of

t he di st r i ct cour t s or der denyi ng i t s opposi t i on t o appel l ee

Beehi ve Whol esal e, LLC s t r ademar k appl i cat i on and di smi ssi ng

i t s r el at ed cl ai ms f or f eder al , st at e, and common l aw t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement , t r ademar k di l ut i on, and unf ai r compet i t i on.

Swat ch appeal s on t he gr ound t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s

under l yi ng f actual f i ndi ngs- - t hat t her e i s no l i kel i hood of

conf usi on bet ween Swat ch s and Beehi ve s marks and t hat

Beehi ve s mar k i s not mer el y descr i pt i ve- - ar e cl ear l y er r oneous.

For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow we af f i r m.

I .

Swatch i s a wel l - known Swi ss cor porat i on t hat pr oduces

wat ches, cl ocks, j ewel r y, and var i ous mat er i al s f or wat ch

col l ectors. I t i s t he owner of t hr ee U. S. r egi st r at i ons f or t he

mar k SWATCH1 and f or mat er i al s bear i ng t hat mar k. Beehi ve i s a

Loui si ana company engaged i n whol esal e and r et ai l sal es of a

var i et y of pr oduct s i ncl udi ng wat ches and wat ch par t s.

Beehi ve pr oduces and sel l s wat ch bands and f aces under t he

mark SWAP. The def i ni ng f eatur e of t hese watch part s i s t hat

1 For cl ar i t y, t he mar ks wi l l be r ender ed t hr oughout i ncapi t al l et t er s whi l e Swat ch wi l l r ef er t o t he appel l ant .


3/26

3

t hey are i nt er changeabl e. A pur chaser of Beehi ve s watch

component s i s abl e t o af f i x any SWAP watch f ace t o most or al l

SWAP wat chbands. Swat ch br and wat ches, whi ch are t ypi cal l y sol d

at a hi gher pr i ce poi nt , do not i ncl ude i nt er changeabl e

component s.

On J ul y 30, 2004, Beehi ve appl i ed t o t he U. S. Pat ent and

Tr ademar k Of f i ce ( PTO) t o r egi st er i t s mar k, SWAP, f or use on

i t s [ w] at ch f aces, r i bbon wat ch bands, sl i de pendant s, and

beaded watch bands. J . A. 315. Beehi ve s appl i cat i on was

pr el i mi nar i l y gr ant ed and publ i shed f or opposi t i on2 on December

26, 2005. On Apr i l 14, 2008, 3 Swat ch f i l ed a not i ce of

opposi t i on t o Beehi ve s appl i cat i on on t hr ee gr ounds: 1)

pr i or i t y of Swat ch s mar k and l i kel i hood of conf usi on; 2) mer e

descr i pt i veness of Beehi ve s mark; and 3) di l ut i on of SWATCH by

Beehi ve s use of SWAP. Swatch pr i mar i l y argued t hat t he

si mi l ar i t y of Beehi ve s SWAP mark t o i t s SWATCH mark i n

combi nat i on wi t h t he si mi l ar char act er of t hei r pr oduct s was

l i kel y t o resul t i n conf usi on among consumer s as t o the or i gi n

2 I nt er est ed par t i es may chal l enge t he regi st r at i on of a

mar k by f i l i ng a not i ce of opposi t i on wi t h t he PTO dur i ng t hemar k s publ i cat i on per i od.

3 Al t hough Swat ch i ni t i al l y f i l ed an opposi t i on on Febr uar y3, 2006, i t s 2008 amended opposi t i on i s t he r el evant f i l i ng f orour pur poses because i t was t he basi s of t he Trademark Tr i al andAppeal Boar d s pr oceedi ng.


4/26

4

of t he goods. I t al so argued t hat SWAP i s t oo gener i c t o be

r egi st er ed. The par t i es submi t t ed evi dence concer ni ng t hei r

pr oduct s, sal es, r evenue, and adver t i si ng, as wel l as deposi t i on

t est i mony r egardi ng Beehi ve s sel ect i on of t he SWAP mark. The

opposi t i on was heard and di smi ssed on al l count s by the

Tr ademar k Tr i al and Appeal Boar d ( TTAB) .

Swat ch t hen f i l ed a ci vi l act i on i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of

Vi r gi ni a seeki ng t he cancel at i on of Beehi ve s r egi st r at i on under

15 U. S. C. 1071( b) . Swat ch added new cl ai ms f or t r ademark

i nf r i ngement and f eder al unf ai r compet i t i on under t he Lanham

Act , 15 U. S. C. 1114, 1125( a) ; t r ademar k di l ut i on under t he

Tr ademar k Di l ut i on Act , 15 U. S. C. 1125( c) ; st at e t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement under Va. Code 59. 1- 92. 12; and common l aw unf ai r

compet i t i on. I t al so submi t t ed document ary evi dence not

pr esent ed t o t he TTAB i ncl udi ng f act s r el evant t o t he SWAP

cl ock- f ace var i ant , t he par t i es channel s of di st r i but i on, and

Swat ch s di l ut i on- by- bl ur r i ng cl ai m. The par t i es agr eed t o

f orgo l i ve t est i mony and have t he mat t er deci ded sol el y on t he

wr i t t en r ecor d. The di st r i ct cour t , upon consi der at i on of t he

mat er i al s bef or e i t , af f i r med t he TTAB, hol di ng t hat i t s

det er mi nat i ons wer e suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence. I t al so

f ound f act s based on evi dence not pr esent ed t o t he TTAB pursuant

t o i t s aut hor i t y under 15 U. S. C. 1071( b) ( 3) . The di st r i ct

cour t concl uded, on t he basi s of t hese combi ned f i ndi ngs, t hat


5/26

5

t here was no l i kel i hood of conf usi on between t he t wo marks and

no l i kel i hood t hat SWAP woul d di l ut e SWATCH. I t di smi ssed

Swat ch s i nf r i ngement and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms as a mat t er

of l aw. I t al so concl uded t hat Beehi ve s mar k i s r egi st r abl e

because i t i s not mer el y descr i pt i ve. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I .

On appeal , we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual f i ndi ngs

f or cl ear er r or and i t s l egal concl usi ons de novo. Li kel i hood

of conf usi on i s an i nher ent l y f act ual i ssue, and we r evi ew[ ]

di st r i ct cour t det er mi nat i ons r egar di ng [ i t ] under a cl ear l y

er r oneous st andar d. Pet r o Shoppi ng Ct r s. , L. P. v. J ames Ri ver

Pet r ol eum I nc. , 130 F. 3d 88, 91- 92 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) . The

st r engt h of a mark and whet her i t i s capabl e of bei ng r egi st er ed

ar e al so quest i ons of f act t hat we r evi ew f or cl ear er r or .

Pi zzer i a Uno Cor p. v. Templ e, 747 F. 2d 1522, 1533 ( 4t h Ci r .

1984) . We have yet t o pr ovi de def i ni t i ve gui dance as t o how

di l ut i on cl ai ms shoul d be r evi ewed because t he Trademark

Di l ut i on Revi si on Act , 15 U. S. C. 1125( c) ( TDRA) , 4 i s a r ecent

enact ment . However , l i kel i hood of di l ut i on, l i ke l i kel i hood of

conf usi on, i s a f act - i nt ensi ve i nqui r y, so t he appr opr i at e

4 Pub. L. No. 109- 312, 120 St at . 1730 ( 2006) . The or i gi nalact r equi r ed pr oof of act ual di l ut i on and act ual economi c har m.Loui s Vui t t on Mal l et i er , 507 F. 3d 252, 264 n. 2 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) .


6/26

6

st andar d of r evi ew i s cl ear er r or . Cf . Loui s Vui t t on Mal l et i er

S. A. v. Haut e Di ggi t y Dog, LLC, 507 F. 3d 252, 264- 65 ( 4t h Ci r .

2007) ( r eci t i ng mul t i f act or f act ual t est s f or det er mi ni ng t he

l i kel i hood of di l ut i on, i ncl udi ng pr ovi ng t he f ame of t he

pl ai nt i f f mar k and t he l i kel i hood t hat an associ at i on bet ween

t wo mar ks wi l l i mpai r t he di st i nct i veness of t he pl ai nt i f f

mar k) . 5

I I I .

A.

Sect i on 1071( b) of Ti t l e 15 of t he Uni t ed St at es Code

per mi t s a par t y i n a t r ademar k sui t t o i ni t i at e a ci vi l act i on

i n t he pl ace of an appeal of t he TTAB s det er mi nat i on t o the

Feder al Ci r cui t . 15 U. S. C. 1071( b) ( 1) . A br i ef descri pt i on

of t he pr ocedur al f eat ur es of 1071( b) i s hel pf ul t o our

anal ysi s.

I n a 1071( b) act i on, t he di st r i ct cour t r evi ews t he

r ecor d de novo and act s as t he f i nder of f act . Dur ox Co. v.

Dur on Pai nt Mf g. Co. , 320 F. 2d 882, 883- 84 ( 4t h Ci r . 1963) . The

5

Our onl y ot her publ i shed case deci di ng t he quest i on ofdi l ut i on under t he TDRA was i n t he post ure of a summary j udgmentand was t her ef ore r evi ewed de novo. Roset t a St one Lt d. v.Googl e, I nc. , 676 F. 3d 144 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) . However i n ourunpubl i shed deci si on i n Super Duper , I nc. v. Mat t el , I nc. , weexpl i ci t l y st at ed t hat t he el ement s of t he TDRA anal ysi s aref act ual det er mi nat i ons. 382 F. App x 308, 314 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) .


7/26

7

di st r i ct cour t has aut hor i t y i ndependent of t he PTO t o gr ant or

cancel r egi st r at i ons and t o deci de any r el at ed mat t er s such as

i nf r i ngement and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms. 15 U. S. C.

1071( b) ( 1) . The di st r i ct cour t must admi t t he PTO r ecor d i f a

part y so moves, and i f admi t t ed, t he record shal l have t he same

ef f ect as i f or i gi nal l y t aken and pr oduced i n t he sui t . I d. at

1071( b) ( 3) . Whet her or not t he r ecor d i s admi t t ed, t he

par t i es have an unr est r i ct ed r i ght t o submi t f ur t her evi dence as

l ong as i t i s admi ssi bl e under t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence and

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e. I d. ; see al so Kappos v. Hyat t , 132 S. Ct .

1690, 1700 ( 2012) ( i nt er pr et i ng 1071( b) s pat ent par al l el , 35

U. S. C. 145) .

Kappos i s t he pr i mar y case i nt er pr et i ng t he pat ent and

t r ademar k ci vi l act i on st at ut es. I n Kappos, t he PTO ar gued t hat

i n a 145 pr oceedi ng where new evi dence i s admi t t ed, t he

di st r i ct cour t shoul d def er t o i t s f i ndi ngs, and shoul d

over t ur n t he PTO s f act ual f i ndi ngs onl y i f t he new evi dence

cl ear l y est abl i shes t hat t he agency er r ed. 132 S. Ct . 1690,

1695- 96 ( 2012) . The Supreme Cour t r ej ect ed t he PTO s premi se

t hat a 145 sui t creat es a speci al pr oceedi ng t hat i s di st i nct

f rom a typi cal ci vi l sui t f i l ed i n f ederal di st r i ct cour t , i d.

at 1696, and adopt ed t he Feder al Ci r cui t s posi t i on t hat wher e

new evi dence i s pr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t on a di sput ed

f act quest i on, a de novo f i ndi ng wi l l be necessary t o t ake such


8/26

8

evi dence i nt o account t oget her wi t h t he evi dence bef ore t he

boar d. I d. at 1700 ( quot i ng Fregeau v. Mossi nghof f , 776 F. 2d

1034, 1038 ( Fed. Ci r . 1985) ) . I t hel d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

does not act as t he r evi ewi ng cour t envi si oned by t he APA,

because t he cour t must det ermi ne, among ot her t hi ngs, how t he

new evi dence compor t s wi t h t he exi st i ng admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d,

and as a l ogi cal mat t er [ i t ] can onl y make [ t hi s]

det er mi nat i on[ ] de novo because i t i s t he f i r st t r i bunal t o hear

t he evi dence. I d. at 1696, 1700.

Kappos al so expl i ci t l y def i nes t he onl y si t uat i on wher e

consi der at i on of t he TTAB deci si on i s per mi t t ed. The Cour t

adopt ed t he Feder al Ci r cui t s r ul e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t may,

i n i t s di scret i on, consi der t he pr oceedi ngs bef or e and f i ndi ngs

of t he Pat ent Of f i ce i n deci di ng what wei ght t o af f or d an

appl i cant s newl y- admi t t ed evi dence. I d. at 1700 ( quot i ng

Hyat t v. Kappos, 625 F. 3d 1320, 1335 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ) . 6 I n sum,

6 Al t hough i t i s not obvi ous f r om Kappos exact l y what t hi smeans, i t i s expl ai ned qui t e cl ear l y i n Hyat t , t he under l yi ngFeder al Ci r cui t deci si on. The Feder al Ci r cui t per mi t s di st r i ctcour t s t o gi ve l ess wei ght t o evi dence whose r el i abi l i t y i si mpact ed by an appl i cant s f ai l ur e, wi t hout expl anat i on, t opr ovi de i t t o t he Pat ent Of f i ce. Hyat t , 625 F. 3d at 1335. A

di st r i ct cour t may, but i s not r equi r ed t o, r evi ew t he PTOpr oceedi ngs and gi ve new evi dence l ess wei ght i f t he f act s of apar t i cul ar case cast suspi ci on on t he new evi dence t hat anappl i cant f ai l ed t o i nt r oduce bef or e t he [ PTO] . I d. Thedi st r i ct cour t di d not f i nd t hat Swat ch i mpr oper l y wi t hhel devi dence, and Kappos seems t o pr ohi bi t any ot her r el i ance on theTTAB s f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons.


9/26

9

where new evi dence i s submi t t ed, de novo r evi ew of t he ent i r e

r ecor d i s r equi r ed because t he di st r i ct cour t cannot

meani ngf ul l y def er t o t he PTO s f act ual f i ndi ngs i f t he PTO

consi der ed a di f f er ent set of f acts. I d.

B.

We ar e const r ai ned t o concl ude t hat t he st andard of r evi ew

ar t i cul at ed by t he di st r i ct cour t i s er r oneous. I t s st at ement

t hat i n a 1071( b) pr oceedi ng i t si t s i n a dual capaci t y and

appl i es a uni que st andar d of r evi ew, act i ng i n par t as an

appel l at e body, i s i n t ensi on wi t h t he st at ut e and di r ect l y

conf l i ct s wi t h t he r equi r ement s of Kappos. Swat ch, S. A. v.

Beehi ve Whol esal e, L. L. C. , 888 F. Supp. 2d 738, 745 ( E. D. Va.

2012) .

However , i t i s not cl ear f r om t he r ecor d t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t di d i n f act i mpr oper l y def er t o t he f act ual f i ndi ngs of

t he TTAB, and r emand i s ther ef or e unnecessar y. As an i ni t i al

mat t er , t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y r evi ewed Swat ch s di l ut i on-

by- bl ur r i ng cl ai m ent i r el y de novo because t he TTAB di d not

addr ess i t on t he mer i t s. Swat ch, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 756 n. 15.

The di st r i ct cour t al so deci ded Swat ch s t r ademar k i nf r i ngement

and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms, whi ch wer e not bef ore t he TTAB,

de novo. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat i t woul d appl y

an i mper mi ssi bl e hybr i d r evi ew t o i t s l i kel i hood of conf usi on


10/26

10

and st r engt h- of - t he- mark anal yses, t her e are more t han

suf f i ci ent f act s reci t ed i n i t s opi ni on t o suppor t i t s f i ndi ngs.

1.

The di st r i ct cour t af f i r med t he TTAB s f i ndi ng t hat SWAP i s

not merel y descr i pt i ve and f ound on a de novo revi ew of newl y

submi t t ed evi dence t hat SWAP was suggest i ve and not merel y

descri pt i ve. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat i t was

def er r i ng t o t he TTAB s f i ndi ngs on t he admi ni st r at i ve recor d,

i t al so st at ed t hat i t under t ook de novo r evi ew of t he Swap s

r egi st er abi l i t y t o account f or new evi dence, as r equi r ed by t he

st at ut e. I d. at 760. Whi l e i t i s not cl ear exact l y what

st andar d of r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t appl i ed, i t appear s t hat

i t made suf f i ci ent f actual f i ndi ngs of i t s own t o j ust i f y a

hol di ng t hat SWAP i s i n f act suggest i ve and not descr i pt i ve.

Because of t he nat ur e of t he st r engt h- of - t hemar k i nqui r y,

t he di st r i ct cour t s possi bl e f ai l ur e t o r eexami ne al l of t he

evi dence de novo does not have a subst ant i al ef f ect on i t s

anal ysi s. Mar ks ar e di vi ded i nt o f our cat egor i es of

di st i nct i veness. Geor ge & Co. , LLC v. I magi nat i on Ent er t ai nment

Lt d. , 575 F. 3d 383, 393- 94 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) . The second and

t hi r d cat egor i es, suggest i ve and descr i pt i ve mar ks, ar e at i ssue

her e. Suggest i ve mar ks ar e i nher ent l y di st i nct i ve. I d. They

do not descr i be a pr oduct s f eatur es but mer el y suggest [ ]

t hem, and ar e t her ef or e ent i t l ed t o t r ademar k pr ot ect i on. I d.


11/26

11

A descri pt i ve mar k def i ne[ s] a par t i cul ar char act er i st i c of t he

pr oduct i n a way t hat does not r equi r e any exer ci se of t he

i magi nat i on. I d. I t i s t hus not ent i t l ed t o pr ot ecti on unl ess

i t has acqui r ed a secondary meani ng. I d.

The quest i on bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t was whether SWAP i s

mer el y descr i pt i ve of a f eat ur e of Beehi ve s pr oduct s,

speci f i cal l y t he i nt er changeabi l i t y of i t s wat ch par t s. Whi l e

we have r ecogni zed t hat i t i s of t en di f f i cul t t o cat egor i ze

suggest i ve ver sus descr i pt i ve mar ks, i t i s never t hel ess an

obj ect i ve f act ual mat t er t o be deci ded by t he t r i er of f act

based on t he meani ng of a mark and the at t r i but es of t he

accompanyi ng pr oduct . Because t he cent r al di st i nct i on i s

whether or not t he mark i mpar t s i nf ormat i on about t he goods

di r ect l y, i d. , i t i s di f f i cul t t o see what evi dence out si de of

t he mar k and the at t r i but es of t he pr oduct coul d be of

assi st ance t o t he cour t . 7

7 Our precedent support s t hi s posi t i on. Al t hough we haveconsi der ed out si de evi dence of di st i nct i veness i n t he past , i ti s gener al l y evi dence of t he meani ng of t he mark, or evi dence

t hat a descr i pt i ve mark has acqui r ed secondary meani ng, nei t herof whi ch ar e at i ssue her e. E. g. , U. S. Sear ch, LLC v. U. S.Sear ch. com, I nc. , 300 F. 3d 517, 524- 25 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002)( det ermi ni ng t he meani ng of sear ch usi ng web pages, medi ar ef er ences, and r ecrui t i ng mat er i al s, and det er mi ni ng i f U. S.Sear ch had acqui r ed secondary meani ng based on a f act - i nt ensi ves i x- f act or i nqui ry) .


12/26

12

For t hi s r eason, we f i nd t hat even i f t he di st r i ct cour t

consi dered onl y the newl y adduced evi dence de novo, i t f ound

f act s suf f i ci ent t o suppor t i t s f i ndi ng t hat SWAP i s not mer el y

descr i pt i ve. The di st r i ct cour t f ound, based on t he new

adver t i sement s Swat ch submi t t ed, t hat SWAP was suggest i ve

because merel y showi ng t he mar k and t he product t oget her woul d

be i nsuf f i ci ent t o convey i t s at t r i but es. Whi l e a mer el y

descr i pt i ve mar k coul d be used i n t hi s manner , [ e] xpl ai ni ng t he

f unct i on of [ Beehi ve s] pr oduct r equi r es a f ur t her l eap.

Swatch, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 760. The cour t f ound t hat

i ndi vi dual s, even r et ai l pr of essi onal s f ami l i ar wi t h t he

pr oduct s, 8 had t o exerci se some i magi nat i on t o connect SWAP

wi t h the f unct i on of Beehi ve s wat ches, as evi denced by

di agr ams on Beehi ve s adver t i sement s t hat not onl y add[ ] arr ows

but ador n[ ] SWAP wi t h t he wor d i t ! I d.

8 Swat ch cont ends on appeal t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed byf ai l i ng t o consi der t he descr i pt i veness of t he mar k as i t woul dappear t o a consumer aware of t he speci f i c nat ur e of t he goods.Thi s ar gument i s mer i t l ess . Fi r st , t he cour t s opi ni on cl ear l yi ndi cat es t hat i t eval uat ed t he mar k as i t woul d appear t oBeehi ve s whol esal er cust omer s, who are undoubt edl y f ami l i arwi t h i t s goods. Swatch, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 760. Second, whi l ewe have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat t he di st i nct i veness of a mar k i s

measur ed i n connect i on wi t h t he par t i cul ar goods or servi cest hat are bei ng of f er ed, we have not r equi r ed t hat t he goods bedef i ned wi t h t he degr ee of speci f i ci t y Swat ch desi r es. U. S.Sear ch, LLC v. U. S. Search. com, I nc. , 300 F. 3d 517, 524 ( 4t hCi r . 2002) ; i d. ( ci t i ng as hypot het i cal exampl es of par t i cul argoods gener i c sel l er s such as a shop t hat sel l s di amonds, . . . af ur ni t ur e pol i sh company, and . . . an appl esauce canner y. )


13/26

13

We f i nd no er r or i n t hese det er mi nat i ons, and Swat ch s

ar gument s on t hi s poi nt ar e unavai l i ng. Asi de f r om i t s

concl usory asser t i ons t hat SWAP descr i bes t he i nt er changeabi l i t y

f eat ur e of Beehi ve s wat ches, Swat ch pr i mar i l y argues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o credi t admi ssi ons by

Beehi ve s execut i ves t hat SWAP i s descr i pt i ve. For pur poses of

t hi s anal ysi s t he di st r i ct cour t s t r eat ment of t hese st at ement s

does not mat t er . As not ed above, descr i pt i veness i s an

obj ect i ve det er mi nat i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t makes on t he

basi s of t he meani ng of a mark and the f eat ur es of any

associ at ed pr oduct s. For t hi s reason, t he opi ni on of a wi t ness,

par t i cul ar l y a l ay wi t ness, t hat a mar k i s descr i pt i ve r at her

t han suggest i ve can be of no assi st ance.

2.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t here was no l i kel i hood of

conf usi on between SWATCH and SWAP. Swat ch argues on appeal t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed because SWAP i s so si mi l ar t o SWATCH

t hat cust omer s are l i kel y t o be conf used about t he or i gi n of

Beehi ve s pr oduct s. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d i mpr oper l y

r evi ew TTAB det er mi nat i ons f or subst ant i al evi dence i n some

i nst ances, because i t was present ed wi t h di f f er ent evi dence and


14/26

14

appl i ed a t est wi t h di f f er ent f act or s f r om t he TTAB, 9 t he cour t

made suf f i ci ent de novo det er mi nat i ons t o suppor t i t s f i ndi ng.

To demonst r at e a l i kel i hood of conf usi on, Swat ch must prove

bot h t hat i t has a val i d and pr ot ect abl e mar k, an el ement t hat

Beehi ve concedes i n t hi s case, and t hat Beehi ve s use of SWAP

creat es a l i kel i hood of conf usi on. Pet r o Shoppi ng Ct r s. , 130

F. 3d at 91. Li kel i hood of conf usi on i s an i nher ent l y f act ual

i ssue. I d. at 92.

A l i kel i hood of conf usi on exi st s bet ween t wo mar ks i f t he

def endant s act ual pr act i ce i s l i kel y t o pr oduce conf usi on i n

t he mi nds of consumer s about t he or i gi n of t he goods or servi ces

i n quest i on. Car eFi r st of Mar yl and, I nc. v. Fi r st Car e, P. C. ,

434 F. 3d 263, 267 (4t h Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng KP Per manent Make- Up,

I nc. v. Last i ng I mpr essi on I , I nc. , 543 U. S. 111, 117 ( 2004) ) .

To deter mi ne i f t here i s a l i kel i hood of conf usi on bet ween t wo

marks, we consi der ni ne non- excl usi ve and non- mandatory f act ors:

( 1) t he str engt h or di st i nct i veness of t he pl ai nt i f f ' smark as act ual l y used i n t he mar ket pl ace; ( 2) t hesi mi l ar i t y of t he t wo mar ks t o consumer s; ( 3) t hesi mi l ar i t y of t he goods or ser vi ces t hat t he mar ksi dent i f y; ( 4) t he si mi l ar i t y of t he f aci l i t i es used byt he mar khol der s; ( 5) t he si mi l ar i t y of adver t i si ngused by t he mar khol der s; ( 6) t he def endant ' s i nt ent ;

( 7) act ual conf usi on; ( 8) t he qual i t y of t he

9 The TTAB f ol l ows t he Cour t of Cust oms and Pat ent Appeal s( pr edecessor t o t he Feder al Ci r cui t ) t hi r t een f act or DuPont t estf or l i kel i hood of conf usi on. I n r e E. I . DuPont de Nemour s &Co. , 476 F. 2d 1357 ( C. C. P. A. 1973) .


15/26

15

def endant ' s pr oduct ; and ( 9) t he sophi st i cat i on of t heconsumi ng publ i c.

George & Co. , 575 F. 3d at 393. These ni ne f act ors serve as a

gui de r at her t han a r i gi d f or mul a f or i nf r i ngement ; t hey ar e

not al l of equal i mpor t ance and not al l f act or s ar e r el evant i n

ever y case. I d. 10

The par t i es agree on appeal t hat t he f i r st and t hi r d

f act or s wei gh i n f avor of Swat ch. The di st r i ct cour t f ound,

however , t hat t he ot her f act or s wei gh heavi l y agai nst a

l i kel i hood of conf usi on.

Fi r st , t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned under t he second

f act or t hat SWATCH and SWAP are not conf usi ngl y si mi l ar . The

cour t st at ed t hat i t agr ee[ d] wi t h t he TTAB t hat t he mar ks

t hemsel ves wer e di ssi mi l ar i n si ght , sound, and meani ng and t hat

t he TTAB s f i ndi ng was t her ef or e suppor t ed by subst ant i al

10 For exampl e, i n t hi s case t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l ydecl i ned t o consi der t he ei ght h and ni nt h f act or s i n t he Geor ge& Co. anal ysi s. Fact or ei ght , t he qual i t y of t he def endant spr oduct , i s most appr opr i at e i n si t uat i ons i nvol vi ng t hepr oduct i on of cheap copi es or knockof f s of a compet i t or st r ademark- pr otect ed goods. Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser - RothCor p. , 81 F. 3d 455, 467 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) . Despi t e Swat ch sasser t i ons t hat Beehi ve s pr oduct s ar e bot h si mi l ar t o i t spr oduct s and sol d at a l ower pr i ce poi nt , t her e i s no evi dence

t hat Beehi ve s pr oduct s ar e mar kedl y i nf er i or and r el y heavi l yon si mi l ar i t y t o Swat ch s product s t o gener at e undeservedsal es. I d. As f or f actor ni ne, i n t he t ypi cal case, buyersophi st i cat i on i s onl y consi der ed when t he r el evant mar ket i snot t he publ i c at - l ar ge. I d. The r ecor d cl ear l y r ef l ects t hatboth part i es hope and i nt end t o sel l t hei r watches t o as manyconsumer s as possi bl e wi t hout r est r i ct i on.


16/26

16

evi dence, i mpl yi ng i mper mi ssi bl e def er ence. Swat ch, 888 F.

Supp. 2d at 750. However , i n a pr act i cal sense, t he di st r i ct

cour t coul d not have concl uded t hat t he TTAB s f i ndi ng was

support ed by subst ant i al evi dence wi t hout per f ormi ng a de novo

r evi ew. I t i s cl ear f r om bot h t he TTAB s and t he di st r i ct

cour t s opi ni ons t hat t he onl y r el evant evi dence f or t hi s

f i ndi ng was t he mar ks t hemsel ves and di ct i onar y def i ni t i ons of

t he words t hey cont ai n. 11 The di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y consi der ed

t he marks t hemsel ves and t he di ct i onary def i ni t i ons, whi ch

appear i n i t s opi ni on. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t sai d i t

agr eed wi t h t he TTAB, gi ven t he nat ur e of t he quest i on bef or e i t

t her e was l i t t l e need f or def er ence. I t woul d be appar ent t o an

aver age consumer t hat SWATCH and SWAP: 1) l ook di f f erent when

wr i t t en; 2) sound di f f er ent when spoken; and 3) have compl et el y

di f f erent meani ngs i n common usage.

Swat ch ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed because i t

shoul d have f ocused on SWA- as t he domi nant por t i on of bot h

marks. We compare whol e words, not par t s, see Sara Lee Corp. v.

Kayser - Rot h Cor p. , 81 F. 3d 455, 465 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) , and

gener al l y use t he phr ase domi nant por t i on t o ref er t o the non-

gener i c words i n mul t i word marks, see Lone St ar St eakhouse &

11 Swatch submi t t ed the Amer i can Her i t age Col l ege Di ct i onarydef i ni t i ons f or swap and swat ch t o t he TTAB.


17/26

17

Sal oon, I nc. v. Al pha of Vi r gi ni a, I nc. , 43 F. 3d 922, 936 ( 4t h

Ci r . 1995) ( i dent i f yi ng Lone St ar as t he domi nant por t i on of

t he Lone St ar St eakhouse & Sal oon and Lone St ar Gr i l l

mar ks) . Ther ef or e t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y consi der ed t he

si mi l ar i t i es bet ween SWAP and SWATCH as whol e wor ds and di d not

er r i n f i ndi ng t hat t he st yl i zed mar ks ar e di ssi mi l ar . 12

Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t expl i ci t l y det er mi ned de novo

t hat t he mar ks wer e di ssi mi l ar as t hey gener al l y appear i n

commerce. Swat ch, 888 F. Supp 2d at 751. The appear ance of t he

mark i n commer ce i s t he rel evant i nqui r y under our pr ecedent .

Anheuser - Busch, I nc. v. L & L Wi ngs, I nc. , 962 F. 2d 316, 319

( hol di ng t hat t o det er mi ne i f t he use of a mar k creat es a

l i kel i hood of conf usi on wi t h a pr otect ed t r ademark we must

exami ne t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng use i n t he cont ext i n whi ch i t

i s seen by t he ordi nary consumer . )

The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y not ed t hat accompani ments t o

marks and t he manner i n whi ch t hey ar e pr esent ed i n connect i on

wi t h goods can si gni f i cant l y reduce t he l i kel i hood of conf usi on

bet ween si mi l ar mar ks. See Car eFi r st , 434 F. 3d at 271- 72. I t

12

Swatch al so ar gues, somewhat conf usi ngl y gi ven i t s f ocuson swa- , t hat we shoul d consi der as evi dence of t hei rsi mi l ar i t y t he f act t hat bot h f ul l mar ks ar e somet i mesaccompani ed by t he word wat ch. However , gener i c t erms do notai d our anal ysi s. I f one mark was accompani ed by wat ch andt he ot her by t i mepi ece, we woul d not consi der t hat t o beevi dence of di ssi mi l ar i t y.


18/26

18

f ound t hat SWATCH al most excl usi vel y appear s accompani ed by a

Swi ss f l ag bot h on pr oduct s and i n adver t i sement s, whi l e SWAP i s

gener al l y accompani ed by t he phr ase by Beehi ve. I t al so f ound

t hat t her e was a subst ant i al di f f er ence i n t he f ont s used by the

t wo marks. Swat ch s ar gument t hat cour t s may onl y consi der

el ement s accompanyi ng a mar k when t hat mar k i s weak, whi l e

SWATCH was f ound t o be st r ong, mi sst at es our pr ecedent . We have

hel d onl y t hat di spar at e desi gn el ement s are most si gni f i cant

when t he mar k cl ai mi ng i nf r i ngement i s weak. I d. at 271. I t s

ot her ar gument , t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o consi der t he

si mi l ar pl acement of SWATCH and SWAP on wat ch f aces, i s

f r i vol ous. Ther e ar e a l i mi t ed number of pl aces t hat a mar k can

r easonabl y appear on a wat ch f ace, and, more i mpor t ant l y, most

of Swat ch s wat ch f aces i ncl ude t he word Swi ss whi l e SWAP

appear s al one. The di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng of di ssi mi l ar i t y i n

commerce was t her ef ore not er r oneous.

The cour t al so f ound on a de novo r evi ew of t he evi dence

t hat t he SWAP cl ock- f ace var i ant , whi ch f r equent l y appear s on

pr oduct s and adver t i sement s, di d not cr eat e a l i kel i hood of

conf usi on. On appeal , Swatch r epeats i t s argument t hat t he

cl ock- f ace var i ant , i n whi ch SWAP appears over t he word wat ch,

and t he l ower cur ve of t he S cont ai ns t wo cl ock hands,

conf uses consumer s by i ndi cat i ng that t hey shoul d read S and

wat ch t oget her . The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r by f i ndi ng


19/26

19

t hi s ar gument unper suasi ve; t he pi ct ur e i n t he S cur ve i s

cl ear l y i nt ended t o por t r ay cl ock hands and not ar r ows

connect i ng t he t wo wor ds. Ther ef or e t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

er r by f i ndi ng t hat t he cl ock- f ace var i ant of SWAP i s not

conf usi ngl y si mi l ar t o SWATCH.

Fi nal l y, we have never hel d, as Swat ch ar gues, t hat cour t s

i n t hi s Ci r cui t must appl y a l ower t hr eshol d f or si mi l ar i t y of

marks when t he part i es pr oduct s ar e more si mi l ar . Swatch has

not advanced any ar gument t hat j ust i f i es t he appl i cat i on of t hi s

r ul e when t he si mi l ar i t y of t he par t i es pr oduct s i s al r eady

account ed f or under t he t hi r d f act or of t he anal ysi s.

The di st r i ct cour t proper l y made al l of i t s f i ndi ngs under

t he f our t h and f i f t h f act or s de novo. The TTAB di d not f i nd

f act s r el at ed t o t he si mi l ar i t y of Swat ch s and Beehi ve s

f aci l i t i es because t he r el evant f act s wer e not bef or e i t .

Swat ch, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 752 n. 12. The TTAB di d not f i nd

f act s r el at ed t o t he si mi l ar i t y of Swat ch s and Beehi ve s

adver t i si ng because adver t i si ng i s not a f act or i n t he DuPont

t est . I n r e E. I . DuPont de Nemour s & Co. , 476 F. 2d 1357, 1361

( C. C. P. A. 1973) .

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he si mi l ar i t y of t he

par t i es f aci l i t i es gave i nsi gni f i cant suppor t t o Swat ch

because t her e ar e basi c di f f er ences bet ween pl ai nt i f f s and

def endant s modes of di st r i but i ng t hei r pr oduct s. Car eFi r st ,


20/26

20

434 F. 3d at 273. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t acknowl edged some

si mi l ar i t y, i t f ound t he over l ap t o be de mi ni mi s bet ween

Swatch, whi ch sel l s pr i mar i l y t o end consumer s i n Swat ch- br and

st or es and depar t ment st or es, and Beehi ve, whi ch i s pr i mar i l y a

whol esal er sel l i ng t o i ndependent r et ai l and gi f t st or es and

t hr ough t r ade shows. I t f ound i nsi gni f i cant over l ap i n Swat ch s

mi ni mal sal es t o gi f t and j ewel r y st or es and Beehi ve s mi ni mal

depar t ment s t or e sal es. I t f ound no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat

t he part i es pr oduct s had ever been sol d i n t he same st ore, and

f ound t hat bot h par t i es i nt er net sal es wer e l i mi t ed t o t hei r

own br and websi t es. Swatch s at t empt s on appeal t o di st i ngui sh

t he f act s of t hi s case f r om t hose of Car eFi r st and Loui s Vui t t on

Mal l et i er wi t h concl usor y asser t i ons t hat Beehi ve s goods and

channel s of t r ade ar e i dent i cal t o i t s own ar e unavai l i ng.

Ther e i s no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat t hi s

f act or i s of no assi st ance t o Swat ch.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Beehi ve s advert i si ng i s

l i mi t ed i n scope and di r ect ed al most ent i r el y t owar d whol esal e

cust omers t hr ough cat al ogues and appear ances at t r ade shows. I t

f ound t hat Swat ch adver t i ses thr ough t el evi si on, magazi nes,

soci al medi a, and a bi l l boar d i n Ti mes Squar e. The di st r i ct

cour t al so f ound t hat nei t her par t y had pur chased adver t i sement s

on t he i nt er net , and t hat t he mer e mai nt enance of a br and st ore

on t he i nt er net does not const i t ut e adver t i si ng. Swat ch appear s


21/26

21

t o concede on appeal t hat t her e ar e subst ant i al di f f er ences i n

i t s and Beehi ve s adver t i si ng but ar gues specul at i vel y t hat

Beehi ve mi ght have r educed or changed i t s adver t i si ng as a

r esul t of Swat ch s opposi t i on t o i t s t r ademar k appl i cat i on.

Thi s cont ent i on f i nds no suppor t i n t he r ecor d. The di st r i ct

cour t di d not er r by f i ndi ng t hat t he di ssi mi l ar i t y of t he

par t i es adver t i si ng f avor ed Beehi ve.

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y char act er i zed i t s

f i ndi ngs r egar di ng t he si xt h f act or , i nt ent t o conf use t he

buyi ng publ i c, as an af f i r mance of t he TTAB, t hat

char act er i zat i on di d not r ender i t s f i ndi ngs er r oneous. Geor ge

& Co. , 575 F. 3d at 397 ( quot i ng Pi zzer i a Uno Cor p. , 747 F. 2d at

1535) . I n suppor t of i t s al l egat i on t hat Beehi ve i nt ended t o

mi sl ead consumer s, Swat ch ar gued i n i t s t r i al br i ef , as bef or e

t he TTAB, onl y t hat 1) Beehi ve had pr i or knowl edge of Swatch s

mark, 2) Beehi ve f ai l ed t o conduct a t r ademark di sput e despi t e

t hi s knowl edge, and 3) t he mar ks are conf usi ngl y si mi l ar as t hey

ar e used i n commer ce. 13 We have al r eady det ermi ned t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng of t he di ssi mi l ar i t y of t he mar ks i n

commer ce was not er r oneous. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t st at es

13 Swatch ar gues f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal t hat Beehi vemi mi cked Swatch s pr oduct desi gns and t hat t hi s ser ves asevi dence of i nt ent . Thi s ar gument has been wai ved and i s notpr oper l y bef or e us. Mor eover i t i s unsuppor t ed by t he r ecor d.


22/26

22

t hat i t i s af f i r mi ng t he TTAB on t he ot her t wo ar gument s, t he

f act s t hat Beehi ve knew of SWATCH bef ore sel ect i ng i t s mark and

t hat i t f ai l ed t o conduct a t r ademar k anal ysi s ar e not i n

di sput e. Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t s hol di ngs t hat t hese

f act s do not const i t ut e bad f ai t h under Act i on Temp. Ser vs. I nc.

v. Labor For ce I nc. , 870 F. 2d 1563, 1566 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989) , 14 and

George & Co. , 575 F. 3d at 398, 15 ar e concl usi ons of l aw. Because

we revi ew concl usi ons of l aw de novo, t her e can be no pr ej udi ce

t o Swat ch f r om t he di st r i ct cour t s i mpr oper char act er i zat i on.

We f i nd no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t s concl usi on t hat

Beehi ve s act i ons do not show an i nt ent t o mi sl ead consumer s.

Because t he TTAB appl i es a di f f er ent st andar d f or act ual

conf usi on, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y f ound on a de novo revi ew

of t he r ecor d t hat t her e was no evi dence of act ual conf usi on,

and t hat t hi s f act or wei ghed heavi l y i n f avor of Beehi ve. The

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat al t hough SWAP had been i n use si nce

2003, Swat ch had not adduced evi dence of a si ngl e i nst ance of

act ual cust omer conf usi on about t he or i gi n of t he par t i es

14 [ M] er e knowl edge of t he exi st ence of t he pr i or user

shoul d not , by i t sel f , const i t ut e bad f ai t h. 15 [ T] he f ai l ur e t o conduct a t r ademar k sear ch or cont act

counsel shows carel essness at most , but i s i n any eventi r r el evant because knowl edge of another ' s goods i s not t he sameas an i nt ent t o mi sl ead and to cause consumer conf usi on. "( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .


23/26

23

pr oduct s. The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y not ed t hat act ual

conf usi on i s gener al l y consi der ed t o be t he most i mpor t ant

f act or i n a l i kel i hood of conf usi on anal ysi s, Geor ge & Co. , 575

F. 3d at 398, and t hat t he absence of any evi dence of actual

conf usi on over a subst ant i al per i od of t i me . . . creat es a st r ong

i nf er ence t hat t her e i s no l i kel i hood of conf usi on. Car eFi r st ,

434 F. 3d at 269. On appeal , Swat ch does not cont end t hat t he

r ecor d i ncl udes any evi dence of act ual conf usi on. I t argues

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t accor ded t oo much wei ght t o the l ack of

act ual conf usi on i n i t s over al l anal ysi s. However , as t he cour t

not ed, t he f act or s are wei ghed di f f er ent l y dependi ng on t he

ci r cumst ances of t he cases, and act ual conf usi on i s of t en

paramount . CareFi r st , 434 F. 3d at 268 ( quot at i on marks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Swat ch al so at t empt s t o ar gue, as i t di d

under t he f i f t h f act or , t hat t he l ack of act ual conf usi on coul d

have r esul t ed f r om Beehi ve modi f yi ng i t s adver t i si ng and use of

t he mar k as a r esul t of Swat ch s opposi t i on. Agai n t hi s

argument i s specul at i ve and unsuppor t ed by t he r ecor d. The

di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat t her e i s no evi dence of act ual

conf usi on bet ween SWATCH and SWAP was not er r oneous.

The di st r i ct cour t proper l y f ound, on a suf f i ci ent de novo

r evi ew of t he ent i r e record, t hat despi t e t he f ame of SWATCH and

t he si mi l ar i t y of t he goods, t he l ack of si mi l ar i t y bet ween t he

mar ks, l ack of pr edat or y i nt ent , l ack of si mi l ar adver t i si ng and


24/26

24

onl y mi ni mal si mi l ar i t y i n f aci l i t i es, i n combi nat i on wi t h t he

most si gni f i cant f act or , act ual conf usi on, r esul t ed i n no

l i kel i hood of conf usi on bet ween SWATCH and SWAP. Swat ch, 888 F.

Supp. 2d at 756 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) .

3.

The di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed Swat ch s t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms as a mat t er of l aw.

We r evi ew t hi s hol di ng de novo. Havi ng f ound no er r or i n t he

di str i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat t her e i s no l i kel i hood of

conf usi on bet ween SWATCH and SWAP, we concl ude t hat Swat ch s

f eder al , st ate, and common l aw t r ademark i nf r i ngement and unf ai r

compet i t i on cl ai ms must be di smi ssed. The Lanham Act r equi r es a

f i ndi ng of a l i kel i hood of conf usi on t o pr ove f eder al t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement , 15 U. S. C. 1114( a) , and f eder al unf ai r

compet i t i on, 15 U. S. C. 1125( a) ( 1) ( A) . Vi r gi ni a l aw r equi r es a

f i ndi ng of l i kel i hood of conf usi on t o pr ove t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement . Va. Code Ann. 59. 1- 92. 12( i ) . Vi r gi ni a common

l aw t r ademar k i nf r i ngement and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms r equi r e

t he same pr oof , i ncl udi ng a l i kel i hood of conf usi on, as t he

Lanham Act of f enses. See Lone St ar St eakhouse & Sal oon, 43 F. 3d

922, 930 n. 10 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) . Because t her e i s no l i kel i hood

of conf usi on bet ween t he mar ks, t hese causes of act i on f ai l as a

mat t er of l aw.


25/26

25

4.

Because t he TTAB di d not deci de Swat ch s di l ut i on cl ai m on

t he mer i t s, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y r evi ewed t he ent i r e

r ecor d de novo t o det er mi ne t hat t her e i s no l i kel i hood t hat

SWAP wi l l di l ut e SWATCH by bl ur r i ng. Swat ch, 888 F. Supp. 2d at

756 n. 15. Ther ef or e, we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng f or

cl ear err or .

Di l ut i on by bl ur r i ng occur s when t he associ at i on ar i si ng

f r om a si mi l ar i t y bet ween t wo mar ks i mpai r s t he

di st i nct i veness of t he f amous mar k. Loui s Vui t t on Mal l et i er ,

507 F. 3d at 264 ( quot i ng 15 U. S. C. 1125( c) ( 2) ) . To succeed on

a di l ut i on cl ai m, t he pl ai nt i f f must show t hat 1) i t owns a

f amous, di st i nct i ve mar k, 2) t he def endant uses an al l egedl y

di l ut i ng mar k i n commer ce, 3) an associ at i on ar ose f r om t he

si mi l ar i t y of t he mar ks, and 4) t he associ at i on i s l i kel y t o

i mpai r t he di st i nct i veness of t he f amous mar k. I d. at 264- 65.

The di st r i ct cour t assumed wi t hout deci di ng t hat Swat ch had

sat i sf i ed t he f i r st t hr ee f actor s, but f ound t hat i t had not

pr oven t he f our t h.

On appeal , Swat ch ar gues onl y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

err oneousl y f ound a l ack of si mi l ar i t y between t he SWATCH and

SWAP marks [ and] over l ooked evi dence t hat Beehi ve s goods copi ed

bot h the SWATCH mar k and desi gns i n i t s di l ut i on anal ysi s.

Appel l ant s Br . 43. As expl ai ned i n det ai l above, t he t wo mar ks


26/26

26

ar e not conf usi ngl y si mi l ar and t her e i s no evi dence t hat

Beehi ve i ntended t o conf use consumers by copyi ng Swat ch s

desi gns or other wi se. Fi ndi ng no cl ear er r or , we af f i r m on t hi s

gr ound.

I V.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t s or der

denyi ng Swat ch s opposi t i on t o Beehi ve s t r ademark appl i cat i on

and di smi ssi ng Swat ch s r el at ed cl ai ms f or f eder al , st at e, and

common l aw t r ademark i nf r i ngement and unf ai r compet i t i on i s

AFFI RMED.

swatch v beehive

Documents