Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03029/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marianne Kingsford
Appellant
Stephen T. Kingsford
Appellant
Kingsfords, Inc.
Appellant
The Kingsford Products Company
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Ci::cuit 

THE KINGSFORD PRODUCTS COMPANY, 

a Delaware corporation, 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-counter-claim-defendant-) 

Appellant, · ) 

v. 

KINGSFORDS, INC., a Kansas 

corporation; STEPHEN T. KINGSFORD 

and MARIANNE KINGSFORD, 

Defendants-counter-claimantsAppellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

R 1 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 90-3020, 90-3029 

(D.C. No. 86-2447-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District 

Judge.** 

After a bench trial, the district court held that plaintiffappellant Kingsford Products Company (KPC) was not entitled to the 

monetary and injunctive relief it sought against defendantsappellees Kingsfords, Inc. (KI), Stephen Kingsford, and Marianne 

Kingsford for trademark infringement. We affirm for substantially 

the reasons given by the district court. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-3029 Document: 010110034207 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
The district court held that appellant failed to show a 

secondary meaning for the Kingsford name in the barbecue sauce 

market. We do not find this holding clearly erroneous. See 

Marker Int'l Y..!.. DeBruler, 844 F.2d 763, 764 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Absent such a showing, appellant is not entitled to trademark 

protection for a surname. Id. 

The district court further held that even if appellant had 

established a secondary meaning in the Kingsford name as it 

relates to barbecue sauce, appellant failed to establish a likelihood of confusion or actual confusion between the KCI and KI 

products. Again, we do not find clear error in this holding. See 

Amoco Oil Co. Y..!.. Rainbow Snow, Inc., 809 F.2d 656, 661 (10th Cir. 

1987). 

Finally, we uphold the district court's decision not to award 

defendants-appellees attorneys' fees. This decision is committed 

to the discretion of the trial court under the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. §1117, and under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 68, which references the 

underlying statute. The district court did not abuse this discretion. 

We therefore AFFIRM the district court. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3029 Document: 010110034207 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2