Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40654
THE GREA T AM ERI CAN RES TA URANT COM PA NY P l a i n ti ff

- A p p ell a n t v. DOM I NO’ s P I Z Z A L LC ; DOM I NO’ S I NC; DOM I NO’ S P I Z Z A I NC D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 52

B ef ore JO L L Y , D eM O S S , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * The G r e atAm e r i c an Res t aur antC o m pa ny ( “ G r e atAm e r i c an” ) o w ns a nd
o p e r a te s a ch a in o f r e s ta u r a n ts in th e D a lla s , T e x a s , a r e a ca lle d“B r o o k ly n ’ s O ld N ei gh borh ood S t yl e P i zzeri a” (“ B rookl yn ’ s” )

. B rookl yn ’ s has a reg istered tr a d e m a r k in th e n a m e o f th e p iz z e r ia a n do n e in th e p h r a s e “Ata s te o f th e o ld
ne i ghb o r ho o d. ” Appe l l e e s D o m i no ’ s Pi z z a LLC , e t al
. ( “ D o m i no ’ s ” ) i nt r o duc e d a
s t yl e o f pi z z a t he y c al l e d “ Bro o kl yn St yl e P i z z a” ( “ BSP ” ) , a nd i ni t i al l y us e d t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40654

2 phras e “At as t e o f

t he o l d nei ghbor hood” t o a dver t i ze t he pi zz a. G r eatA m er i c an f i l ed cl ai m s agai nstD om i no’ s under bot h t he Lanh am A c tand t he c om m on l aw al l egi n g t radem ark i n f ri n gem en tof

both of i t s t radem arks. W e rev i ew a d i stri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t den o vo . B d

. of S u pervi sorsforL a. S t ateUn i v. Agri c. & Mech. Col l

. v. S m ack A pp arelCo. , 550 F. 3d 465, 474 ( 5th C i r. 2008)

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e o nl y “ i f t he pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery and di s c l o s ur e m ater i al s on f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow th a t t h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l fa c t a n dth a t t h e m o v a n t is
en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 (c )

. W he n e va l uat i ng a s um m ar y j udg m e ntm o t i o n, w e r e s o lve al l r e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e s i n fav o r o f t he
n o n m o v in gp a r tya n dd o n o t w e ig h th e s tr e n g th o f th e e v i d e n c e . R e e ve s v. S an d ers on P l u m bi ng Prods. , I n c. , 530 U
. S. 133, 150 ( 2000)

. Tw o ce nt r alfac t uali s s ue s w e r e c o nt e s t e d a tt r i ala nd o n a ppe al
. Fi r s t , t he pa rt i es di spu t e w h et h er “ B S P ” i s generi c ordescri ptive. I f i ti s s i m pl y gen eri c, i t ca n n ot l eg a l l y i n fri n ge on a n y m a rk
. S m al lBus
. As s i s t anc eCor p. v . Cl e ar C h an n elB road

. , I

n c. , 210 F. 3d 278, 279 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( “Atr adem ar k c annotbe in fr in g e db yth e g e n e r ic t e r m fo rth e p r o d u c t itd e s ig n a te s .”). If “ B S P ” is de s c r i pt ive , o n t he o t he rha nd, i tha s t he po t e nt i alt o i nf r i nge ab s e nt a s ho w i ng o f t he a f f i r m at ive de fe ns e o f

fai rus e , w hi c h Dom i no ’ s di d notra i s e . Se c o nd, D om i n o’ s c on t en ded t h at t h ere w as no l i kelih ood o f con f u si on as t o source bet w ee n D om i no’ s “ B SP ” and B r oo kl yn’ s pi zz er i as . Sum m ar y j udgm entw as i m proper i f

t h ere w as a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfactw i t h res pect t o w h et h er D om i n o’ s use of

t h e ph rase creat ed a l i kelih ood of conf u si on , i f t h ere w as al so a genui ne i ss u e of m a teri alfac tw i t h re spe c tt o w het hert he phra se “ B r oo kl yn S tyle P i zza ” i s m ere l y g en eric. H ere , the re w ere m a terialfa ctu a li ssu es o n bo th of t h ese questi on s. T h ere w as evi den ce f rom m u l t i pl e sources i n di cat i n g t h at there i s no such th in ga s a “B r o o k ly n s ty le p iz z a ,” m e a n in gth a t t h e p h r a s e c o u ld n o t b e g e n e r icN o. 08- 40654

3 o re v e n d e s c r ip tiv e . T h e r e w a s a ls o a fa c tu a l d is p u te a s to w h a t t h e te r m w o u ld desc r ibe (t hati s , w he t he ri tw as a no t he rt e r m f o ra N e w Yor k s t yl e pi z z a or de s c r ibe d adif

fe r en tt yp e o f

pi z z a al t o ge t he r) , c as t i ng f ur t he rdo ubto n t he p h r a s e ’ s ch a r a c te r iz a tio n a s g e n e r ic o rd e s c r ip tiv e . F u rt h erm ore, G reatA m eri can p resented ev i den ce i n di cat i n g a l i kelih ood of conf u si on cau sed by D om i n o’ s use of “ B S P
. ” Th i s c ou rtassess es t h e l i kelih ood of c onf usi on usi ng a l i stof severa lnonexc l usive fac t or s, or“ di gi t s, ” i ncl udi ng, am o ng o t he r s , t he s i m i l ar i t y of the m ar ks , t he s i m i l ar i t y o f t he pr o duc t s , a nd
a c tu a l co n fu s io n . S cot tF etzerCo. v. Hou se of

V acu u m s, I

n c. 381 F. 3d 477, 484- 85 (5t h C i r. 2 004 )

. In ad di t i on , a l t h ou gh this courtha s never an al yzed a case of
r e v e rse con fusion i n th e i n fri n ge m en t con tex t (w h i ch a ri ses w h en , a s h e r e , a la rg e r a n d m o re w e llk n o w n co m p a n yu se s th e m a rk of a sm a ll e r s e n ioru se r), ot h er c ou rt s hav e add ress ed the “ com m erci alstr en gth” of t h e j u n i or user’ s m ark
w h e n a s s e s s in gre v e r s e co n fu s io n . A & H S port sw ear, Inc. , v. V i ct ori a’ s S ecret S t ores , I

n c. , 2 3 7 F .3 d1 9 8 , 2 3 0 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 0 ). G r e a t A m e r ic a n p r e s e n te d d ir e c t e v id e n c e re la tin gto a c tu a l co n fu s io n in t h e f orm of t estim o n y from B rookl yn ’ s m an agers w h o rec eived cal l s f rom custom ers att em pti n g t o use D om i n o’ s c ou pon s. E vi den ce of th e lik e lih ood of
con fusion also a rose f rom the fa ct t h a t th e D om i n o’ s p h ra se w a s so sim i l a r to B r o o k ly n ’s tr a d e m a r k . D o m in o ’s u s e o f t h e e x a c tw o r d s o f B r o o k ly n ’s t r adem ar ked s l ogan “At as t e o f the o l d n ei ghbor hood” f ort en m ont hs c an l ead t o a n addi t i onali n feren ce of l i k ely con fusion , not w it hst andi ng D om i no’ s eve nt ual di sc ont i nuati on o f

t he s l ogan. Al t houg h D om i no’ s pre se nt ed e vi denc e t hat Bro o kl yn’ s pi z z e r i as a nd Dom i n o ’ s p i z z as w e r e dif fe r e ntpr o duc t s , a fac t uali s s ue as t o t he i rs i m i l ar i t y r e m ai ne d b as e d o n t he fac tt hatb o t h c o m pa ni e s a r e i n t he pi zz a- del iver y bus i nes s. Fi nal l y, t her e w as evi denc e i ndi c at i ng t hat“ B SP ” had
a c q u ir e ds e c o n d a r ym e a n in ga s s o c ia t in gitw it h D o m in o ’s d u e to D o m in o ’sN o. 08- 40654

Inasmuch as we find that the evi dencele av es disputed issues of material fact tobe 1 deci de d withres pectto liab ility , we donot re achth e i ssuesrel atin gto expert s an d da ma ges . 4 extensive ad vert i si n g cam pa i gn ; such evi den ce of t h e “ com m erci alst rength” of th e d e fe n d a n ts ’m a r k is p r o b a tiv e in ca s e s o f r e v e r s e co n fu s io n . W e do n otcom m en ton t h e st rength of t h i s evi den ce. W e do f i n d, how ever, t hatG r e atAm e r i c an has pr e s e nt e d e no ugh e vi de nc e t o c r e at e a g e nui ne i s s ue of m ater i alfact , such tha tth e case, on thi s r ecord, cann otbe deci ded on su m m a ryj u d gm en t. 1 Fort he r e as o ns st ated ab o ve , t he s um m ar y j udg m e nti s VA CA TE D a nd t h e case i s R E M A N D E D f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs.

VA CA T ED a n dR EMANDE D.