2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-19-2002

Chatam Intl Inc v. Bodum Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-3422

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Chatam Intl Inc v. Bodum Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 418.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/418
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No: 01-3422 

 CHATAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 

 BODUM, INC.; "CHAMBORD.COM" 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-01793 

 District Judge: Hon. Edmund V. Ludwig 

 

 Argued: July 15, 2002 

 (Filed: July 19, 2002) 

 Before: McKee, Weis & Duhe, Circuit Judges 

 

Paul M. Lewis, Esq. Argued 

Joshua Sarner, Esq. 

Sarner & Associates 

1835 Market Street 

Eleven Penn Center, 29th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 Attorneys for Appellant 

David E. Bennett, Esq. Argued 

Chad A. Schiefelbein, Esq. 

Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz 

222 North LaSalle Street 

Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Barry L. Cohen, Esq. 

Thorp, Reed & Armstrong 

2005 Market Street 

One Commerce Square, Suite 2010 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 Attorneys for Appellee 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

McKee Circuit Judge. 

 Chatam International Incorporated appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of Bodum, Inc. and against Chatam International on the latter’s claim 

for trademark infringement and trademark delusion pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125. For 

the reasons that follow, we will affirm. 

 Inasmuch as we write only for the parties who are familiar with the background of 

this suit, we need not set forth the underlying facts or circumstances of this appeal. We 

have reviewed the thorough and thoughtful Memorandum which the district court filed 

on August 8, 2001. We believe the district court adequately explained its reasons for 

granting summary judgment, and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary 
judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in that thoughtful Memorandum. 

 We do, however, note that at oral argument, counsel for Chatam, argued that it 

was not "immediately apparent" that Bodum’s use of the domain name, 

"CHAMBORD.COM," was related to the sale or offering of coffee makers (as allowed 

by the 1982 Consent Decree) as opposed to the sale of coffee or tea (as prohibited under 

the Consent Decree). However, it is uncontested that the unambiguous text of the 

Consent Decree allows Bodum to use the mark, "Chambord," "in connection with the 

sale and offering for sale of coffee makers." The challenged use of the domain name 

here is clearly "in connection with the sale . . . of coffee makers." 

 Although it can be argued that such a connection is not "immediately apparent" on 

the face of the domain name, the language of the Consent Decree does not require it to 

be. The connection to coffee makers is, immediately apparent from the web pages linked 

to the domain name. That is consistent with the language that the parties drafted. 

 Although it is certainly possible that Bodum could use the mark in connection with the 

sale of coffee makers in a manner that would violate the Consent Decree, we do not find 

any such inconsistency here. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err 

in granting summary judgment to Bodum, Inc. 

 By the court: 

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee 

 Circuit Judg