2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-11-2005 

# C e ntury 21 v

. Le nding T ree Inc
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4700

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C e n tur y 21 v

. L e nd in g T r e e Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 301. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/301P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 03- 4700

CE NT UR Y 2 1 RE AL E S T AT E CO RP OR AT I ON; CO L DWEL L BA NKE R R E AL E S T AT E CO RP OR AT I ON;

ERA F RANCHI S E S YST EM S , I NC.

v. L E N D IN G T R E E , IN C ., A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 02810) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h A

. G ree n aw ay , Jr.2 A r gued D ece m ber6, 2004 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es, a n d YOHN 

### * , D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed O ct ober11, 2005)

B ruce I

. G ol ds t ei n S a ib e r, S c h les in g e r, S a tz & G o ld ste in O ne G at ew ayC ent er , Sui t e 1300 N ew ar k, N J 07102- 5311 J e f f r e yA. Co n c i a t o r i [ AR GUE D] Q ui nn, E m anuel , U r quhar t , O l i ver& H edges 335 M adi s on A venue, 17t h Fl oor N ew Y or k, N Y 10017 C ouns el f orAppel l ant Lendi ngTre e, I

nc.

______________________________ 

### * H on. W i l l i am H

. Y ohn, J r . , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.3 S t e p h e n W. F e i n g o l d [ AR GUE D] P itn e yH a rd in 7 T im es S q u are N ew Y or k, N Y 10036 C ouns el f orAppel l ees C ent ur y 21 RealEs t at e C or

por at i on; C oldw el lB ankerR eal Es t at e C or

por at i on; E r a Fr anchis e Sys t em s , I nc.

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
T hi s case p rese nt s an oppor tuni t yforus t o cons i dert he co n tou rs of

the trad it ion al t est fo r trad em ark inf ri n g em en t w h ere th e d e f e n d a n t a s s e rt s th e d e f

e n s e o f “ n o m in a tiv e f

a iru s e .” M or e s p e c i f

i c a l l y , we mus t d e t e r mi n e wha t r o l e l i k e l i h o o d of confus i on pl ay s i n a tr ademar k i nfr ing ementcas e w her e the d e f e n d a n t c la im s th a t its u s e w a s n o m in a tiv e a n d f a ir

. Ap p e l l e e s , Ce n tu r y2 1 , Co l d we l l Ba nk e ra n d ERA ( “C C E ”) compl ai n t hatA ppel l antL endi ng T r ee ( “LT ”) , i n t he4 p ro c e ss o f

m a rk e tin g its m o rtg a g e se rv ice s, im p ro p e rly re f e r e n c e d C C E ’s tra d e m a rk e d se rv ice s. L T c o n ten d s th a t it s u s e wa s n o mi n a t i v e a n d f a i r , a n d p e r mi t t e d a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. “N om i nat i ve” f

ai rus e i s s ai d t o occur “w hen the al l eged in f ri n g e r u s e s th e [ tr a d e m a rk h o ld e r’ s ] p ro d u c t, eve n i f the al l eged i nf

r i nger ’s ul t i m at e goal is t o des cr i be his ow n pr oduct

. N om i nat i ve fa i rus e al s o occur s i f t he onl y pr act i cal w ayt o r efe r t o s om ethi ng i s t o us e the t rad em arked t erm . ” K P Per m anent M ake- U p, I nc. v. L as t i ng I m pr es s i on I , I nc. , 328 F

. 3 d 1061, 1072 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) (re v’ d. on ot hergr ounds ) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. B ycontr as t , “cl as s i c” f ai rus e occ ur s w her e the d ef en d an t use s the p lai n ti ff ’s m ark to d esc ri b e the d ef en d an t’ s ow n p rod u ct. N ew K ids o n the B lock v . N ew s A m erica P u b ., In c ., 9 7 1 F .2 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 8 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ).
T h e u se o f

th e ter m “ V o lk sw a g e n ” b ya c a r m e c h a n ic in a n a d d e sc rib in g th e typ e s o f c a rs h e re p a irs h a s b e e n h e ld to cons t i tut e a nom inative fai rus e. See i d. at307 ( ci t i ng V ol ks w agenw erk A kt i enges el l s chaf tv. C hur ch , 411 F. 2d 350 (1 9 6 9 )). C lea rly , th e m e c h a n ic is re f e rrin g to a n o th e r’s p ro d u c t, bu t d o e s s o i n o r d e r t o d e s c r i b e wha t h e d o e s . On t he ot her h an d , the u se o f the term “m icro-co lors, ” a reg ist ere d tr ad em ark of one make- up company , r efe r r i ng t o t he pi gm ent s of the p ro d u c t o f

a d if f e re n t an d c o m p e tin g m a k e -u p c o m p a n yth a t it us ed i n i t s ow n pr oduct , w as cl as s i fi ed as a cl as s i c fa i rus e. See K P P erm anentM ake- U p, I nc. , 328 F. 2d at1072. T her e, t he5 r e f e r e n c e t o t h e ma r k o f a n o t h e rwa s ma d e i n d e s c r i b i n g i t s o wn produ ctand i t s at t ri bu t es. T ra d iti o n a lly , w e h a v e lo o k e d to w h e th e r a tra d e m a rk is li k elyto ca u se c o n fu sion in o rde r t o d eterm in e w h ethe r a vi ol at i on of the L anham A cthas occurr ed and, t hus , w hethert he us e s h o u l d b e e n

j o i n e d a n d p r o h i b i t e d

. Howev e r , i ti s u n c l ear w hat r ol e “l i kel i hood of conf us i on” pl ay s i n t he ana l y s i s w hen “fa i r us e” i s as s er t ed as a defe ns e. R ece nt l y , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court pr ovi ded gui dance t o t he cour t s r egard ing t he t es tforcl as s i c fa i rus e i n K P Per m anentM ake- U p, I nc. v. L as t i ng I m pr es s i on I , Inc

. , 125 S. C t

. 542 ( 2004)

. T he i s s ue befor e us i s t he ext entt o w hi ch i t s r eason ing appl i es t o t he n o m in a tiv e f

a iru s e a n a lysis a s w e ll.
I . Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound
A p p e llee s C e n tu r y 2 1 a n d E R A h a v e e a c h b e e n in b u sin e ss f

o r o v e r 3 0 y e a rs. C o ld w e ll B a n k e r h a s b e e n in b u sin e ss f

o r a lm o st 1 0 0 y e a rs. E a c h o f th e s e r e a l es tate compani es over s ees a s y s t em of fr anchi s ees w ho oper at e by re f e re n c e to th e f

ra n c h iso r’s tra d e m a rk (e .g ., C e n tu ry2 1 S m ith R eal t y )

. Fr anchi s e agr eeme n t s per m i tt hos e br oker age compani es t o pr ovi de r eal t y s ervi ces undert r ademar ks hel d by C endantC orpor at i on. E v e ryf ra n c h ise e is g ra n te d a lice n se to us e i t s fr anchi s or ’ s t r ademar k onl y i n connec t i on w i t h i t s “d/b/ a” name. ( T hus , a fr anchi s ee coul d onl y r efe r t o i t s el f as6 C en tury2 1 S m ith R ea ltyan d n o t j u st C en tur y 2 1 ). T h ere are ov e r8, 20 0 f

r a nc hi s e e s i n CC E’ s c ol l e c t i ve s y s t e ms i n t he U

. S.
A ppel l ant L endi ngT r ee de s cr i bes i t s el f as a di ver s i fi ed co n su m er-o ri en ted In terne t bu sine ss tha t h e lps c o n su m ers id e n ti f y a n d se lec t q u a lifie d len d e rs, re a l es tate b ro k e rs, a u to i ns ur er s , and otherfi nanci al s ervi ce c om pani es . I thas a r eal e sta te r e f e rra l se rv ice th a t c o n su m e rs c a n a c c e ss b y v isitin g its w ebs i t e and i nput t i ng t he l o ca t i on and cha r act er i s t i cs of the hous e theyar e s eeki ng t o buyors el l

. L T t hen s elect s and t r ans m i ts i nfor m at i on aboutup t o fourr eal es t at e compani es par t i ci pat i ng i n L T ’ s r efe r r al netw or k t hats ervi ce that co m m u n ity . If c o n su m ers ult im atelyu se a n L T ref erred b rok er, t heyr ece i ve r ew ar ds , s uch as ai r l i ne fr equentfl i erm i l es and gi ft car ds

. L T al s o has an es t abl ishe d m or t gage r efe r r al pr ogr am bas ed on con tr actual r el at i ons hi ps w i t h par t i ci pat i ng fi nanci al in s titu tio n s id e n tif

ie d o n its w e b s ite

. A t t he t i me o f

t h i s a c t i o n , LT’ s r e a l e s t a t e r e f e r r al netw or k cons i s t ed of more t han 650 r eal es t at e br okerm ember compani es i n t he U

. S. , w hi ch col lecti vel yoper at ed more t han 2, 50 0 o ffi ces. M ore than 9 ,0 00 real est at e agen t s i n those off i ces w ere r egis t ered part i ci pan t s i n L T ’s netw o rk . A tl east 257 of the approxi m at el y650 r eal es t at e br okerm ember co m pani es par t i ci pat i ng i n t he L T netw or k oper at ed a C e n tu ry 2 1 , C o ld w e ll B a n k e r, o r E R A f ra n c h is e .7 L T ’ s r eal es t at e r efe r r al netw or k w as for m ed i n 1998 by H o m e S p a c e , a c o m p a n y f ro m w h ich L T a c q u ire d c e rta in a ss e ts in A u g u st 2 0 0 0 . A s e a rlya s 1 9 9 9 , H o m e S p a c e p u b licly advert i s ed i t s r eal es t at e r efe r r al netw or k i n pr i nt ed mat er i al s as “i ncludi ng brokers r epresent i ng t he nati on ’s l eading franch i ses, s uch as C ol dw el l B anker , C entur y21 .

. . and ER A

. ”
T he al l eged i nfr i ngement her e i s bas ed on the fol l ow i ng uses of C C E ’s m arks:

( 1) A C ol dw el l B anker“ForSal e” s i gn w i t h a w om an, purpor t i ng t o be a r eal es t at e agent , next t o i t , on w hi ch t he bl ue and w hi t e C ol dw el l B ankerl ogo w as s om ew hat obs cur ed byt he w or d “SO L D

. ” L T ’ s phone numberw as att he b o tt o m . T h is scen e w as d ep ict ed at th e b o tt o m o f L T ’s h o m e p a g e o n its w e b s ite

.

(2) A stat em en t byL T o n it s “F ind a R ea lt o r” h o me p a g e s t a t i n g t h a t LT wi l l “ g i v e y o u a c c e s s t o a nat i onal n e tw o rk o f

b ro k e rs r e p re se n tin g th e c o u n try ’s le a d in g re a l es tate c o m p a n ie s , in c lu d in g C o ld w e ll B a n k e r, E R A a n d C e n tu ry 2 1 .” T h ese thr ee na m es heade d a bul l et

- poi nt ed l i s tof al l s uch real t ors t o w ho m L T prom i sed access. T he m arks on t ho se p a g e s w e re in b lo c k lette r f o rm a t. ( 3) L T ’ s s t at em ent on i t s w ebs i t e’ s H el p C ent er th a t L T is “ [ r]e p re se n ted b ylar g e in d e p e n d e n t re a l es tate co m p an ies an d m em b ers o f m ajor f ran ch ises - C o ldw ell B an k er,8 C entur y21, Pr udent i al , E R A , R eM A X , G M A C ( for m er l yBe tt er H o m e s & G a rd e n s ), a n d R e a lty E x e c u tiv e s .”

( 4) L T ’ s us e of pr i nt ed mar ket i n g m at er i al s t hat stat ed that “L T is aff

il iat ed w ith m o re th an 7 0 0 ce rt ifi ed b rok ers s uch as C ol dw el l B anker , C entur y21, Pr udent i al , E R A and R E /M A X .”
I n J anu ary2003, K athr yn G ei b, i n- hous e couns el for C C E ’s p a re n t co m p a n yre sp o n sib le f o r th e e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

its tr ad em ark s, w rote to L T to d em an d that itstop u sing C C E ’s

“ m a rk s” o n its w e b site in a n y m a n n e r in th e o p e ra tio n o f its b u sin e ss . A t th a t ti m e , L T w a s u sin g C C E ’s l o g o s o n its w ebs i t e. A ft er r ece i pt of t he l et t er , L T s t opped us i ng t he l ogos ( oranyot herof C C E ’ s m arks ) on t hat w ebpage , butcont i nued to u se C C E ’s m ark s in bloc k let ter fo rm o n o ther w eb p ag es. In M ar ch 20 0 3 , Gei b l e a r n e d t h a tLT was u s i n g a ma r k e t i ng coupon cont ai ni ng t he “a ffi l i at ed l anguage ” des cr i bed above

. G ei b s enta l et t eras ki ng L T t o s t op s uch us e. I n M ay 2003, C C E di s cove red t hatL T w as us i ng C C E ’ s m arks , buti n bl ock l et t ers, o n it s w ebpage

. G ei b agai n w r ot e, as ki ng L T t o s t op s u c h u s e . No ts a t i s f

i e d wi t h t h e r e s p o n s e f r o m L T, CCE comm ence d t hi s act i on and appl i ed fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on agai ns t L T ’ s us e of i t s m arks , cl ai m i ng unfai rcompet i t i on and t r ademar k i nfr i ngement i n vi ol at i on of §§ 32 and 43( a) o f t he L anham A ct , 15 U

. S. C

. §§ 1114( 1) and 1125(a )

. A ti s s ue i n t he9 c a se b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt w a s th e u se o f C C E ’s m a rk s in bl ock form i n bul l etpoi nt s on L T ’ s w ebpage , m arket ing m at er i al s us i ng t he “affi l i at ed w i t h” l anguage des cr i bed above , and the C ol dw el l B anker“ForSal e” s i gn. Aft e ro r a l a r g u me n t bef o r e t h e Di s t r i c tCou r t , LT v o lun tari lyim p lem en ted ce rt ain m o d ifi ca ti o n s to i ts w eb sit e. It change d t he backgr ound col or of t he “ForSal e” s i gn fr om bl ue t o r ed and r emoved t he phone numberatt he bot t om of the s i gn, m oved the pos i t i on of the bul l et poi nt s w i t h pl ai nt i ffs ’ names on t hem from first t o l as ti n i t s “Fi nd a R eal t or ” l i s t , and adde d a di s cl ai m ert o i t s r eal es t at e hom epage t hat “LT i s nots pons or ed byoraff i l i at ed w i t h t he par ent f r anchi s orcompani es of anyof th e p a rticip a tin g m e m b e rs o f its n e tw o rk .” L T a lso a d d e d a n o te t o a pop- up s cr een s ay i ng t hat“A par t i cul arfr anchi s ee i n y our geogr aphi c ar ea maynotbe ava i l abl e t o y ou thro ugh t he L endi ngT r ee ne t w or k i f thatfr anchi s ee i s nota part i cipa ti ng m ember of the netw or k. I n addi ti o n , iti s pos s i bl e thatt he netw or k m ay not i ncl ude any fr anchi s ee of a part i cul arnat i onal companyi n a gi ven ar ea. ” ( T extfr om w w w . L endi ngT r ee. com atJ A 689. ) L T not i fi ed the D i s t r i ctC our t of t hes e changes and re p re se n ted th a t all o f th e lan g u a g e a lleg e d lyg iv in g rise to C C E ’s m o ti o n h ad b ee n p erm an en tl yre m o v ed fro m L T ’s w ebs i t e and w oul d notbe us ed i n t he futur e. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s u ed i t s rul i ng w i t h r es pectt o t he lan g u a g e u se d b yL T a t th e tim e th e c o m p lain t w a s f iled , a s w e ll as t he modi fi ed language. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned that10 L T ’ s u s e o f

App e l l e e s ’ n a me s was l i k e l yt o c a u s e c o ns um er c o n f u sio n , th a t th e n o m in a tiv e u se d e f e n se d id n o t sh ield L T in this i n stan ce , an d thu s, g ran ted C C E ’s m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary i nj un c t i o n a s t o t h e u s e o f CCE’ s ma r k s a n d t h e “ a f f i l i a t i on” lang u ag e, bu t no t th e “ F o r S ale” sign

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s anal y s i s di d nots epar at e out t he or i gi nal l anguage fr om t he l at er m odi fi ed l anguage , a s t he D i s t r i ctC our ts eemed t o concl ude that th e re v isio n s d id n o t alle v iate th e p ro b lem . L T n o w a p p e a ls th is i s s uance of the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. O n appea l , w e mustfi r s tdeci de w hethert he ca s e w as m ootw hen the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued i t s rul i ng, gi ven the fa ct t hat L T had m ade s ever al change s t o t he al l egedl y inf ri ngi ng l a n g u a g e a n d t h e p i c tu r e o n i t s web s i t e . I f t h e c a s e was not m oot , w e mustt hen det erm i ne t h e prope rt es tt o appl yi n t he si tuati on w here a defe n d a n t is assert i ng a no m i nati ve fa i r use d ef en se to claim s o f u n fa irco m p eti ti o n an d tr ad em ark in f ri n g e m e n t u n d e r t h e L a n h a m A c t.

I I . Juri s di ct i on T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear t h i s case pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1331 and 1338. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on under 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ).11 III . M oo tness
A l t hough a cas e maybecome m oot“i f the def endantcan demonst r at e thatt her e i s no r eas onabl e expect at i on t hatt he w r ong w i l l be r epea t ed, t hi s bur den i s a h ea v y one . . . ” and ha s no tbe e n methe r e . U ni t e d St a t e s v. W

. T. G r a ntCo. , 34 5 U. S. 629, 633 ( 1953) ( quot at i on om i t t ed)

. T h e m o di fi ed l anguage th a t L T e m p lo y e d still ref e re n c e d C C E ’s m a rk s a n d , thu s, is p o tential lyinf

ri n g ing an d itca n n o t be s aid that L T ’s vo lun tary di s cont i nued us e of c er t ai n l anguage compl et elyobvi at es t he n e e d f o r in ju n c tiv e re lief. S e e L y o n s P a rtn e rsh ip v . M o rris C os tum es , I nc. , 243 F. 3d 789, 800 ( 4t h C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. For i ns t ance , t he u se of C C E ’ s m arks i n bl ock l et t er f o rm a t co u ld c o n stitu te tra d e m a rk in f rin g e m e n t in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s. W h e th e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s ar e p re se n t in th is c a s e is s till a q u e s tio n th a t n e e d s to b e re s o lv e d

. F u rth erm o re, w ere w e to h o ld tha t L T ’s vo lu n tary cessat i on of the al l eged i nfri ng i ng ac ti vit i es r end ered t he case m oot , t h is w o ul d pot ent i al l ym ean thatL T w oul d “s i m pl ybe fr ee t o r etur n t o [i t s ] ol d w ay s af ter the t hr eatof a l aw s ui thad pas s ed. ” I r on A r r ow H onorSoc. v. H eckl er , 464 U

. S. 67, 72 ( 1983) ( quot at i on om i t t ed)

. T her efor e, t he ca s e i s notm ootand w e w il l pro ce ed to an aly ze the s u b stan ti v e claim s o f trad em ark i nfr i ngement and unfa i rcompet i t i on.12 IV . F air U se It m u st be re c o g n ize d a t th e o u tse t th a t “f a ir u se ” p re se n ts a f a c t p a ttern d if

f e re n t f ro m th a t o f

a n o rm a l in f

rin g e m e n t su it. T he typi cal s i tuat i on i n a tr ademar k cas e i nvol ves t he defe ndant ’ s h av ing pas s ed off another ’ s m ark as i t s ow n or h a v in g u se d a sim ilar n a m e , co n f u sin g th e p u b lic a s to p re c ise ly w h o se g o o d s a re b e in g so ld . L ik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n is th e so le i s s ue. B utt he fa i rus e defe ns e, byr eas on of the ci r cumst ance s gi vi ng r i s e t o i t s appl i cabi l i t y , al t er s the pr emi s e s om ew hat

. T he defe ndant i s not purpor t i ng t o be s el l i ng goods ors ervi ces t hat the p lai n ti ff h as trad em ark ed , b u t, rathe r, is using p lai n ti ff ’s m ar k i n or dert o r efe rt o defe ndant ’ s ow n goods or t o t he goods o f th e tra d e m a rk o w n e r in a w a yth a t m ig h t co n f u se th e p u b lic a s to t he rel at i on shi p b et w een the t w o. S ee C ai rns v. F ran k lin M i n t C o . , 2 9 2 F

. 3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 5 1 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, t he l egal fr amew or k s t i l l i nvol ves a s how i ng t hatA ’ s r efe r ence t o B ’ s m ar k w i l l l i kel yconfus e the publ i c, butt he ana l y s i s does n o t en d th e re , fo r th e u se m a yn o n e th e les s b e p e rm iss ib le if it i s “fa i r . ”
I n K P Per m anent M ake- U p, I nc. v. L as t i ng I m pr es s i on I, Inc ., 1 2 5 S

. C t. 5 4 2 , 5 4 5 -46 (20 0 4 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt r ej ect ed the n o ti o n t hat , i n t he cont extof cl as s i c fa i rus e, t he p artyasse rt ing the f

air use d ef

en se to a c lai m o f trad em ark i nfr i ngement had anybur den t o negate the l i kel i hood t hatt he p ra c tice c o m p lain e d o f

w ill c o n f

u se c o n su m e rs a b o u t th e o rig in of the s ervi ces orgoods aff ect ed

. Instead, pl ai nt i ff ha s t he13 excl us i ve bur den t o demonst r at e l i kel i hood o f confus i on, and t hen defe nd ant’ s burden i s o nly t o sho w t he af fi rm at i ve d efen se of fa i rus e. T he Supr eme C our ts t at ed, “[s ] i nce the burde n of pr ovi ng l i kel i hood of confus i on r es t s w i t h t he pl ai nt i ff, and the fai rus e def

endanthas no fr ee- s t andi ng need t o s how confus i on unl i kel y. . . i tfol l ow s t hats om e pos s i bi l i t yof cons um er confus i on m us tbe compat i bl e w i th fai rus e . . . . ” Id. at550. T h u s, c o n su m e r c o n f

u sio n a n d f

a ir u se a re n o t m u tu a lly excl us i ve. T he l at t erw i l l i n es s ence r ebut or excus e t he form er s o t hatt he us e i s perm i s s i bl e. B e f ore t he S up rem e C ou rtspok e on t he is sue of cl assic fai rus e, t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui thad cha r t ed a path t hr ough a di ffe r entfai r us e anal y s i s – nom i nat i ve fa i rus e. I n N ew K i ds on the B lock, 971 F. 2d at308, t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui tadopt ed i t s ow n t es t governi ng t he nom i nat i ve fa i rus e ana l y s i s w her e the m ark s ar e us ed, as t hey ar e her e and in t he ca s e of the mechani c’ s ad des cr i bed above that ref ere n ce d V o lksw ag en , to ref er to th e plainti ff

tr ad em ark o w n er’s p rod u ct i n o rde r t o h elp be tt er d esc ri b e the d ef en d an t’ s p ro d u c t o r se rv ice . T h e re a f ter , itre f in e d th e tes t a n d c lar if

ied its appl i cat i on. See, e. g. , Pl ayboy E nt erpr i s es , I nc. v. W el l es , 279 F

. 3 d 7 9 6 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tt h e u s e of t h e t e r ms “Pl ayboy , ” “Pl aym at e, ” and “Pl aym at e of t he Y ear 1981" on the w ebs i t e masthead and banne rads and i n t he met at ags of the w e b site o f

a f o rm e r P laym a te o f

th e Y e a r w e re n o m in a tiv e f a ir us es beca us e they serv ed t o i dent i fyt he def endantand di d not im p ly c u rre n t sp o n so rsh ip o r e n d o rse m e n t); C a irn s v . F ra n k lin14 M in t C o ., 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e sa le of col l ect i bl es bear i ng t he name and l i kenes s of Pr i nces s D i ana w as a n o m inative f

air use ).
Few ot hercour t s have s poken on t he pr eci s e i s s ue of how n o mi n a t i v e f

a i ru s e i s s u c c e s s f

u l l yi n v o k e d. I nd e e d , i ts e e ms t hatonl y t he Second, Fi fth, and Si xt h C i r cui t s have r efe r ence d t he n om i n a tiv e f

a i r use defense b ynam e and even on t hese occa s i ons have done s o onl y t o r efe r t o w hatdi s t r i ctcour t s had do ne w i t h the i ssue or to d ecl i ne t o ado pt t he N i nth C i rcui t ’s t est as a w hol e. See C hamber s v. T i m e W arner , I nc. , 282 F. 3d 147, 156 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( not i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour thad appl i ed the sta n d a rd f

o r n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se a s a rticu late d b y the N in th C ir cu it , b u t fi n d ing that the c o u rth ad e rr e d in it s ap p li ca ti o n ); s ee a l s o Pebbl e B eac h C o. v. T our18 I L t d. , 155 F. 3d 526, 546 n. 13 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (ad opt i ng t he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s nom i nat i ve f a ir u se tes t in p a r t) ; In ter a c tiv e P ro d u c ts C o rp . v . A z z M o b ile O ffi ce Sol u t i ons , I nc. , 326 F. 3d 687, 698 n. 6 ( 6t h C i r . 2003) ( footnot i n g w hya di s t r i ctcour tcas e i nvol vi ng t he nomi nat i ve fa iru se d ef

en se w as d ist in g u is h ab le fro m the c ase b ef o re it ); PA C A A R I nc. v. T el eScan T echnol ogi es , L

. L

. C

. , 319 F. 3d 245, 2 56 ( 6t h C i r . 2003) ( decl i ni ng t o fol l ow t he N i nt h C ir cu it ’s a n a l y s i s ( f

o rmu l a t e d p r i o rt o t h e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n KP Per m anent M ake- U p) and appl y i ng t he l i kel i hood of conf us i on testinstead ).
F u rt h erm or e, t hi s i s s ue i s one of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n our C our t

. See B as i c Fun, I nc. v. X

- C oncept s , 157 F. Supp. 2d 449,15 45 6 (E

. D

. Pa. 2001) ( s t at i ng t hat“the Thi r d C i r cui tdoes not r ecogni ze the ‘ nom i nat i ve’ fai rus e def ens e, w hi ch i s ut i l i zed a s a def ens e solel yi n t he N i nt h C i r cui t ”)

. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey di d ventur e i nt o t he area o f no m i nati ve fai r use d efen se i n L i qu i d G l ass En t erpr i ses, In c . v . D r. I N G h .c.f. P o rsc h e A G a n d P o rsc h e C a rs N o rth A m eri ca, Inc. , 8 F

. S up p. 2d 39 8 (D

. N

. J. 1 9 9 8 ). T hat cas e in v o l v e d t h e u s e o f

P o rs c h e ’s tr a d e m a rk s b yL iq u id G la s s , a corpor at i on t hats ol d carcar e pr oduct s . L i qui d G l as s us ed P o rsc h e ’s tra d e m a rk s in its a d v e rtise m e n ts f o r c a r p o lish – in par t i cul ar , an ad i nvol vi ng a prov o cat i vel ydr es s ed w om an p o l i s h i n g a Po r s c h e 9 1 1 wi t h t h e t r a d e ma r k “PO R SCHE” pl ai nl yvi s i bl e. T he courtinit ial lyanal y zed the ca s e undert he n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se d e f

e n se a rticu late d b yth e N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls in N e w K id s O n T h e B lo c k , h o w e v e r, it confl at ed the t es tw i t h t he pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den of pr ovi ng l i kel i hood of conf

us i on. See Li qui d G l as s , 8 F. Supp. 2d at403 (f in d in g th a t L iq u id G las s’ f a ir u se d e f

e n se w a s d e f

e a ted , in par t , beca us e Por s che w oul d “l i kel ypr evai l i n demonst r at i ng that the u s e o f

P o rsch e’s trad em ark s . . . in L iqu id G lass’s ad v erti sem en ts w o u ld li k elyco n fu se c o n su m ers a s to P o rsch e’s connec t i on w i t h L i qui d G lass”). T he C our tr evi ew ed ea ch of t he tr adi t i onal fac t or s us ed t o det erm i ne the l ikeliho od of co nfus i on, t hough t hi s anal y s i s i s noteven a par tof the N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock t es t

. T hi s cour t ’ s di ffi cul t y i n appl y i ng t he tr adi t i onal t es tforl i kel i hood of conf us i on t ogetherw i t h t he nom i nat i ve fa i ruse def ens e hi ghl i ght s t he nee d t o cl ar i fyt he pr operanal y s i s i n t hi s ar ea of t he l aw . G i ven the pauc i t yof the16 cas e l aw on t hi s s ubj ect fr om everycour tot hert han the C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , and t hatC our t ’ s ext ens i ve s tudy o f th is is s u e , w e w ill c o n s id e r t h e o p in io n s o f th a t C o u rt

. I n N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock, t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui tcons i der ed w hether t w o s epar at e new s paper s t hat h a d c o n d u c ted p o lls a sk in g re a d e rs to v o te f o r th e ir f

a v o rite N ew K i d O n t he B l ock, and char gi ng m oney for eac h t el ephone vot e ca s t , had empl oy ed the “N ew K ids” t r ademar k i n s uch a w ayas t o vi ol at e the Lanham A ct

. T he tr ademar ked name w as veryval uabl e t o t he N ew K i ds , as i thad bee n us ed t o s el l over 5 0 0 d if f e re n t p r o d u c ts , th e p ro f its o f w h ich p a rtiallyin u re d to t he bene fi tof t he N ew K i ds

. N ew K i ds al l eged t hat t he us e of t he name i n conduct i ng t he pol l s i m pli ed that t he N ew K i ds w ere s po nsori ng t he p oll s. T he C ourt b egan w i t h a di s cus s i on of the hi s t or yof tra d e m a rk law , n o tin g th a t:

[ a ] tra d e m a rk is a l im ited p r o p e rty r i ghti n a par t i cul ar w or d, phr as e or sym bo l

. A nd al t ho ug h the E ng l i sh lan g u a g e is a la n g u a g e ric h in i m a g e r y , we n e e d n o tb e l a b o rt he poi ntthat s om e w or ds , phr as es or s ym b o ls b e tt e r c o n v e y th e ir in te n d e d m e a n in g s th a n o th e rs ... T hu s, t radem ark law recogn i zes a17 defe ns e w her e t he mar k i s us ed onl yt o des cr i be the good s or se rv ic e s o f

[ a ] p a rty , o r th e ir g e o g r a p h i c o r i g i n . 1 5 U. S

. C. § 1115( b) ( 4)

. T he ‘ fai r - us e’ defe nse, i n essence, forb ids a tra d e m a rk re g istra n t to a p p ro p ria te a des cr i pt i ve t erm forhi s excl us i ve us e and s o pr eventot her s from acc u r a t e l y de s c r i b i ng a charact eri st i c of thei r good s. N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock, 971 F. 2d at 306 ( quot i ng Sow eco, I nc. v . S h e ll O il C o ., 6 1 7 F .2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ))

. T he court r eas oned t hat nom i nat i ve fa i rus e ca s es – “the cl as s of ca s es w her e the us e of the tr ad em ark does notat t empt t o capi t al i ze on cons um erconfus i on ort o appr opr i at e the ca chet of one produ ct for a differ ent on e” – are no t t he typical fai r use c a se s. It d e sc rib e d th e V o lk sw a g e n u se a s a n e x a m p le o f th is a typ ica l typ e o f

f a ir u se : A g o o d e x a m p le o f th is is V o lksw a g e n w erk A kr i enge s el l s chaf

tv. C hur ch, 411 F

. 2 d 3 5 0 ( 9 t h Ci r . 1 9 6 9 ) , wh e r e we hel d thatV ol ks w agen c oul d not p r e v e n ta n a u t o mob i l e r e p a i rs h op18 f r o m u s i n g i t s m a r k

. We r ecogni zed thati n “adve r t i s i ng [the r epai rof V ol ks w agens , i t ] w oul d be di ffi cul t , i f noti m pos s i b l e, for [C hu rch] t o av oid al t og et her the use o f th e w o rd ‘V o lk sw a g e n ’ o r its abbr evi at ion ‘ V W , ’ w hi ch ar e the n o rm a l ter m s w h ich , to th e p u b lic a t la rg e , s ig n i f

ya p p e lla n t’ s c a rs .” Id. at 35 2. C hu rch did no t sugge st t o cus t om er s t hathe w as par t of the V ol ks w agen or gani zat i on ort hat hi s r epai rs hop w as sp ons or ed or author i zed byV W ; he m er el yus ed t he w or ds “V ol ks w agen” and “V W ” t o convey i nfor m at i on about t he types of ca r s he r epai r ed. T her efor e, hi s u s e of t he V ol ks w agen tr ademar k w as notan i nfr i ngi ng us e. N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock, 971 F. 2d at307.
T he C our t t hen re as oned thats uch a s i tuat i on s houl d be v iew e d a s “ in v o lv in g a n o n -tra d e m a rk u se o f a m a rk

. . .”: Such nom i nat i ve use of a mar k – w h e re th e o n lyw o rd re a so n a b ly19 avai l abl e t o des cr i be a pa r t i cul ar t hi ng i s pr es s ed i nt o s ervi ce – l i es o u tsi d e the str ictu res o f trad em ark law : B e c a u se it d o e s n o t im p lica te t he s our ce- i dent i fi cat i on funct i on th a t is th e p u rp o se o f

tr a d e m a rk , it d o e s n ot con st i t ute un f a ir c o m p e tit io n ; su c h u se is f a ir b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t im p ly s pons or s hi p or endor s ementbyt he tr ad em ark h o lder.
I d. at308.
T he C our tdi s t i ngui s hed “nomi nat i ve” f ai rus e fr om “c lassic” f

air use , n o ti n g that if d ef en d an t’ s u se o f th e trad em ark re f e rre d to so m e th in g o th e r th a n th e p lain tiff ’s p ro d u c t, t r adi t i onal fai rus e i nqui r yw oul d cont i nue t o govern. T h e c o u rt th e n a rticu late d its o w n tes t f o r n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se : [W ]her e t he d efen dan t u ses a

tr ad em ark t o d esc ri b e the p lai n ti ff ’s p r o d u c t , r a t h e rt h a n i t s o wn , we h o ld th a t a c o m m e rc ial u se r is enti t l ed to a no m i nati ve f a i r use defe ns e pr ovi ded he meet s t he20 f o llo w in g th re e re q u ire m e nts : F irst, th e p r o d u c t o r se rv ice in q u e stio n m u st be o n e n o t r e a d ily i dent i fi abl e w i t hout u s e of the t r ademar k; s econd, onl ys o m uch of t he ma r k o r ma r k s ma y b e u s e d as i s r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o i dent i fy t he pr oductors ervi ce; and thi r d, t he us er m us t do not hing t hat w oul d, i n conj unct i on w i t h t he m ar k, s ugges ts pons or s hi p or e n d o rsem en t bythe trad em ark h o ld e r. I d.
In announci ng t hi s new t es t , N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock r ej ect ed tr adi t i onal t r ademar k i nfr i ngement anal y s i s . I thel d t hat this t es t r ep lace s the “li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion ” test fo r trad em ark cas es w her e nomi nat i ve fa i rus e i s as s ert ed. See C ai r ns v. Fr ankl i n M i ntC o. , 292 F. 3d 1139, 1151 ( 9t h C i r . 2002)

. I n a m or e r ece ntcas e, t he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s has el abor at ed on i t s r eas oni ng fort hi s s hi ft

. A ppl icati on of the l i kel i hood of confus i on t es t , w hi ch focus es on t he s i m i l ar i t yof t he m ark us ed by t he pl ai nt i ff a nd defe ndant , “w oul d l ead t o t he incorr ect concl us i on t hat vi r tual l y al l nom i nat i ve us es are confus i ng” bec aus e “[ w ] hen a de fenda ntus es a tr adem ark n o m inally , the trad em ark w il l be id en ti ca l t o the p lai n ti ff ’sI nt er es t i ngl y , t he thi nki ng of the N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof 1 A p p ea ls ap p e a rs t o h av e e v o lved in this reg ard

. T h e c o u rt r eas oned i n N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock thatnom i nat i ve us e does notr i s k cons um erconfus i on and i s “out side t he s t r i ctur es of tra d e m a rk law .” 9 7 1 F .2 d a t 3 0 8 . T e n y e a rs la ter , h o w e v e r, it j us t i fi ed r epl aci ng t he l i kel i hood of conf u sion t es tbyar gui ng th a t th e tes t w o u ld b e in a c c u ra te in th e n o m in a tiv e u se c o n tex t. P l a yb o yE n t e r s . , 2 7 9 F

. 3 d a t8 0 1

. As e x p l a i n e d b e l o w, we 21 m ar k, atl eas ti n t erm s o f the w o r ds i n ques t i on. ” Pl ayboy E nter s. , 27 9 F

. 3d at80 1. T hu s, t he li keli ho od of co nfu si on t est as appl i ed i n nom i nat i ve fa i rus e ca s es w oul d di s advant age the defe ndantbym aki ng confus i on an al l butfor egone c oncl us i on. W h ile w e a g re e w ith th e N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls t hat a di st i nct anal y si s i s nee d e d f o r nom i nati ve fa i r use cases , w e do notacc eptt he leg al b as i s oradvi s abi l i t yof s uppl ant i ng t he l i kel i hood of conf

us i on t es tent i r el y . F ir st, w e do nots ee n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se a s s o d if

f e re n t f ro m c las sic f

a ir u s e a s to w arran t su ch di ffe r entt r eatm ent

. T he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s bel i eved t hatt he tw o t ypes of fa i rus e coul d be dis t i ng uis hed on t he b asi s 

### that no minative f ai r u se m akes it

cl ear to consum er s that the plai ntiff, no t the defend ant, is the s ourc e o f th e trad em ark e d p r o du ct o r serv ice, w h ile classic f air u se d o es n o t. T hus , t he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s bel i eved that a di ffe r entanal y s i s w as appr opr i at e for nom i nat i ve fai rus e and t hat i t c ou l d a ba nd on t he ne e d fo r pr oo f of c on fu s i on i n these ci r cumst ance s . N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock, 971 F. 2d at307- 08. 1bel i eve thatnei t herr at i onal e r equir es us t o abandon the l i kel i hood of conf

us i on t es t i n t he nom i nat i ve us e cont ext , and p a r t i c u l a r l yn o ts i n c e t h e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n KP P e rm a n e n t M a k e -U p . 22 Y et , i ti s cl ear t o us t hateven a defe ndant ’ s nom i nat i ve us e has th e p o ten tial o f

c o n f u sin g c o n su m e rs w ith re sp e c t to its p ro d u c ts o r serv ices. S ince the de fe n d an t u lt im ately u ses th e p la inti ff ’s m ar k i n a nom i nat i ve cas e i n or der t o des cr i be i t s ow n pr oduct o r se rv ice s, C a irn s, 2 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 1 & n .8 , ev e n a n a c c u ra te nom i nat i ve us e coul d pot en ti all yconfus e cons um er s aboutt he p lai n ti ff ’s en d o rsem en t or sp o n so rship o f the d ef en d an t’ s pr oduct s ors ervi ces . T hus , w e di s agr ee w i t h t he funda m ent al di s t i nct i on t he N i nt h C i r cui t C our tof A ppeal s dr ew betw een cl as s i c and nomi nat i ve fa i rus e. I n addi t i on, t he appr oach of t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t w o u ld r el i eve the pl ai nt i ff of t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he keyel ementof a tr ademark inf r i ngementcas e – l i kel i hood of conf

us i on – as a pre condi t i on t o a defenda nt ’ s even havi ng t o as s er tand demonstr at e i t s ent i t l ementt o a nomi nat i ve f a i r u s e d e f

e n s e . Th e Su p r e me Cou r t i n KP P e r ma n e n tM akeU p c lea rlye sta b lish e d th a t itw a s p lain tiff ’s b u rd e n in a c las sic fa iru se c ase to p rov e l ikeliho o d o f co n fu sion

. T h ere , the C o u rt n o ted th e d iffe ren ce b etw ee n fa iru se a n d o ther trad em ark i nfr i ngement cl ai m s , opi ni ng, as w e s t at ed above , th atl i kel i hood of conf us i on and fa i rus e can coe xi s t

. T hi s does notm ean that w e shou l d rem o v e th e n eed f or fi nd i ng con fusi on i n the fi rs tA s d e sc rib e d a b o v e , th e N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls 2 s t ated i t s vi ew i n N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock thatt he us e of anoth e r ’ s ma r k t o d e s c r i b e p l a i n t i f f ’ s o wn p r o d u c t i s o n e s t ep rem o v ed fro m the true sco p e o f th e trad em ark law s an d the v ery conce ptof tr ademar k i nfr i ngement

. B utt hi s t hi nki ng pr ovi des al l t he more rea s on t hata pl ai nt i ff i n t hats i tuat i on s houl d be r equi r ed t o pr ove thatconfus i on exi s t s befor e p u tt i ng t he defe ndantt o i t s pr oof. I f s uch ca s es ar e trul yout s i de of the sc o p e o f th e tra d e m a rk law s th e n a p lain tiff w o u ld sim p lyf

a il t o s how confus i on and the court ’ s i nqui r yw oul d end. 23 i ns t ance . I ns t ead, once the pl ai nt i ff pr oves l i kel i hood of confus i on, defe ndantonl yhad t o s how t hatdefen d ant ’ s us e, e v e n if c o n f u s in g , w a s “ f

a ir .” 2

T h is view fin d s su p p o rtn o t on lyin the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s r ece ntopi ni on, butal s o i n t he rel ev an ts t atut or yfr amew or k. T he very l anguage of t he L anham A ct l eads us t o concl ude that l i kel i hood of conf

us ion is a n es s ent i al i ndi cat orof w hetheror nott r ademar k i nfr i ngement has occurr ed. B oth §§ 32 and 43( a) of the Lanham A ct , al l egedl y vi ol at ed i n t hi s cas e, forbi d us e of w o rd s o r m a rk s in a w a yw h ich is l ik e ly to c a u se c o n f u sio n a s to th e o rig in , sp o n so rsh ip , o r a p p ro v a l o f g o o d s o r se rv ice s. S u re ly th e p lain tiff ’s su c c e ss in its c laim m u st re lyo n a f in d in g in th is r egar d. G i ven thi s , w e dec l i ne t o r ead thi s r equi r ementoutof a c a se a lleg in g tra d e m a rk in f rin g e m e n t.24 W e ar e thus l eft w i t h t he fi r m convi ct i on t hatt he bur den of pr ovi ng l i kel i hood o f confusi on s houl d r emai n w i t h t he p lai n ti ff in a trad em ark inf ri n g em en t case – inclu d ing o n e w h ere t h e d e f e n d a n tc l a i ms n o mi n a t i v e f a i r u s e . As d e t a i l e d b e l o w, we w i l l devi s e a modi fi ed l i kel i hood of conf us ion t es tt o be empl oy ed i n nom i nat i ve fa i rus e cas es t hat t akes i nt o acc ountt he conc e r n s e x p r e s s e d b y t h e Cou r t o f App e a l s f o r t he Ni n t h Ci r c u i t

. T h e n , we wi l l d e t e r mi n e t h e e x t e n t t o wh i c h we w o u ld a d o p t th e tes t f o r n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se th a t th e N in th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s es t abl i s hed i n l i ghtof our d isa g re e m e n t w ith th a t c o u rt’s v iew th a t n o m in a tiv e f a ir u se is fundament al l ydi ffe r entfr om cl as s i c fa i rus e.

V . T he P roper A nal y t i cal A pproach f or N om i nat i ve Fai r U s e C as es A . O vervi ew T o d a yw e a d o p t a tw o -ste p a p p ro a c h in n o m in a tiv e f a ir u se c a se s. T h e p lain tiff m u st f irst p ro v e th a t co n f

u sio n is lik e ly du e t o the defen dan t ’s use of plai nti ff ’s m ark. A s w e dis cuss m or e ful l ybel ow , beca us e ourt r adi t i onal l i kel i hood of con fusi on t estdo es not applyneatl yt o n om i nati ve fa i r use cases , w e s ugges t el i m i nat i ng t hos e fac t or s us ed t o es t abl i s h confus i on i n ot hert r ademar k i nfr i ngementcas es t hat d o not“fi t ” i n t he nom i nat i ve us e cont ext

. O nce pl ai nt i ff ha s m eti t s bur den of p ro v in g th a t co n f

u sio n is lik e ly , the b u rd e n th e n sh if ts to d e f e n d a n t to sh o w th a t its n o m in a tiv e u se o f p lain tiff ’s m a rk is25 no nethel ess fai r. T o d e m o n strat e fai rness , t he d efen dan tm ust s at i s fya thr ee- pr onged nomi nat i ve fa i r use t es t , der i ved t o a gr eat ext ent fr om t he one ar t i cul at ed by t he C our t of A ppeal s for t he N i nth C i rcui t

. U nd er ou r fai rness t est , a defe nd ant m u st sh ow : (1) t hat t he use of pl ai nti ff’s m ark i s necessaryto des cr i be both the pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oductors ervi ce a nd t he d e f e n d a n t’s p ro d u c t o r se rv ice ; (2 ) th a t th e d e f e n d a n t u se s o n ly s o m uch of the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark as i s nece s s aryt o des cr i be pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct ; and ( 3 ) th at the def endant ’ s conductor l anguage r efl ect t he t rue and acc ur at e r el at i ons hip b etw een plai nti ff an d d efen dan t ’s produ ct s or s ervi ces. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e r ecogni ze thatourconcurr i ng c o l l e a g u e r e

j e c t s t h e b i f

u r c a t e d a p p r o a c h t h a twe n o w a d o p t

. He argues i nst ead thatt he fact ors w e con si der u nd er t he fai rness t est shou l d b e i nco rporat ed int o the l i keli ho od of co nfu si on analy si s. I n h i s v i e w, o u r b i f

u r c a t e d a p p r o a c h p l a c e s a h e a v y b ur den on th e d e f e n d a n t to n e g a te c o n f u sio n a n d is ju d ic ially unm anage abl e. H ow ever , ourappr oach doe s not hi ng of the k in d

. W e conc l ude thatt he br oad bas ed l i kel i ho o d o f c o n f us i on t es tour concurr i ng col l eague pr opos es i s m i s pl ace d fors ever al r eas ons . Fi r s t , i ti s l ar gel youtof s ync w i t h t he exi s t i ng j ur i s prudence on fai rus e. T he concurr ence ’ s t es t al l ow s no r eal pos s i bi l i t yof the co- exi s t ence of fai r us e w i t h s om e l i kel i hood o f c o n fu sion , y et t h is i s p rec isel y w h at th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s ho l ding i n K P P erm anen tM ake-U p speci fi cal l ycon t em plat es.T he conc ur r ence r el i es heavi l yon a m i x of cas e l aw t hat 3 w a s , in o u r view , large lyu n d erm ined b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt ’s h o l d i n g i n KP P e r ma n e n tM a k e - Up. Be f o r e t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s opi ni on i n t hatcas e, a fi ndi ng of l i kel i hood of conf us i on s o u n d e d t h e d e a t h k n e l l f o ra c l a s s i c fa i r u s e d e f e n s e i n s o me ci r cu i t s . Se e KP Pe r ma n e n tM a k e - Up, I n c . v . La s t i ng I m pr es si on I , I nc. , 328 F. 3d 1061, 1072 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) ( “[T] her e ca n be no fa i rus e i f ther e i s a l i kel i hood of conf us i on

. . . . ”) ; PA C A A R , 319 F. 3d at 256 ( “A fi ndi ng of l i kel i hood of confus i on fo rec los es a [c l as s i c] fai rus e def ens e. ”)

. L i kew i s e, t h e Cou r t s o f

App e a l s f

o rt h e Fi f

t h a n d Ni n t h Ci r c u i t s s t a t e d, pr i ort o K P Per m anent M ake- U p, t hat nom i nat i ve fa i rus e i s not an i nfr i ngement s o l ong as t her e i s no li kel i hood of conf us i on. C ai rns, 29 2 F

. 3d at 11 51 ; P ebb l e B each, 15 5 F

. 3d at 54 6. T hese cour t s have not cons i der ed t he vi abi l i t y of thei rappr oach s i nce K P Per m anentM ake- U p w as deci ded. See Ty , I nc. v. Publ ’ ns I nt ’ l , L t d. , i nfr a, at*7. W e re l y on t he N i nt h C i r cui tpr ece dent 26 S e e KP Per mane n tM a k e - Up , 1 2 5 S

. Ct

. a t5 5 0 ( “ [ S ] o me p o ss ib ili tyo f

c o n su m e r co n f

u sio n m u st b e c o m p a tib le w ith f a ir us e . . . . ”)

. I n addi t i on, ourconcurr i ng col l eague reject s t he not i on t hatnom i nat i ve fa i r us e coul d be us ed as an af fi r m at i ve d e f e n s e , v i e wi n g i t i n s t e a d a s a c o n f u s i o n s u b s t i tu t e . Y et , t he Supr eme C our tcl ear l yvi ew s fai r us e ( al bei tcl as s i c fa i rus e) as an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e. I d. at548- 49 ( r ef erring t o t he a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n se o f f a ir u se ). T h e c o n c u rre n c e f a ils to expl ai n w hyK P Perm anent M ake- U p s houl d nei t hercontr ol nor inf o rm o u r a n aly sis h ere , ch o o sing instead to ign o re the C o u rt ’s di ct at es i n t hatcas e as t heyappl yt o nom i nat i ve fa i rus e. A ft er 3i ns ofaras i ti dent i fi es t he nee d fora s epar at e t es t fornom i nat i ve fai rus e, b u t w e rej ecti t s vi ew t hatt hi s t es ts houl d be a subst i tute for l i keli h o o d of co nfu si on . A no m i nati ve u se d e f e n d a n t n e e d o n ly p ro v e f a irn e ss a n d is no t re q u ire d to n e g a te confus i on. J udge Fi s herpoi nt s t o P r es t onet t es , I nc. v. C ot y , 264 4 U

. S. 359 ( 1924) , and G

. D

. Sear l e & C o. v. H u d s on P h a rm a c e u tica l C o rp ., 7 1 5 F .2 d 8 3 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ), as a u th o rity fo r l im it in g o u r i n q u iryto li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion

. H o w ev er, even a cur s or y r evi ew of t hos e opi ni ons –dat i ng back 80 and 20 y ear s , r es p ec ti v el y–r evea l s l i t t l e i n t he w ayof gui dance foran a n a ly sis o f

n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se . In d e e d , n o re f e re n c e to “ f

a ir 27 t hatdec is i on, i ts eems t o us t hatnei t hercl as s i c ornom i nat i ve fai rus e s houl d r i s e and f al l bas ed on a f

i ndi ng of l i kel i hood of confus i on. C l as s i c fa i r us e and nom i nat i ve fa i rus e ar e di ffe r ent i n cert ai n re sp ect s, bu ti ti s uncleart o u s w hyw e shou l d ask rad icall yd iffe ren t qu esti o n s w h en an aly zing a d e f e n d an t’ s a b i l i t yt o r e f

e rt o a p l a i n t i f

f ’ s ma r k i n t h e t wo c o n t e x t s . As we have a l r eady s t at ed, i n bot h nom i nat i ve and c l as s i c fa i rus e ca s es t he def endant u ses t he pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark des cr i pt i vel yi n a w ay th a t p o ten tiallyc o n f

u se s c o n su m e rs a b o u t th e re latio n sh ip b etw ee n the p lai n ti ff

an d the d ef

en d an t’ s p rod u ct or se rvice s. In th e c las s ic f

a ir u se c o n tex t, th e d e f e n d a n t u se s th e m a rk to des cr i be i t s ow n pr oduct , and i n t he nomi nat i ve cont ext , t he d e f e n d a n t r e f

e re n c e s p lain tiff ’s p ro d u c t in o rd e r to d e sc rib e its ow n. T he keyfi r s t i nqui r yi n bot h s i tuat i ons s houl d be w hether th e re is a lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n . T h e o n lyo th e r c o u rt to

4us e, ” l etal one “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e, ” ca n be found i n ei t her opi ni on. B ot h cas es s eem, i ns t ead, t o s t and fort he pr opos i t i on that clea r a n d tr u thf

u l r ef ere n ce s to the p rod u cts o f o thers a re p e r mi t t e d

. Th u s , t h e u n d e r l y i n g t h e me o f t h o s e o p i n i o n s s e e ms to su p p o rt, rath e r th a n u n d e rc u t, an a n a ly sis th a t sp e c if ica lly exami nes w hethert he us e i s cl ear an d trut hful , as does t he aff i r m at i ve def

ens e w e pos i t , and thatt he Supr eme C our thas embra ced. M or eover , ouranal y s i s does not d isturb t he hol di ng of e ith e r P re s to n e ttes o r S e a rle . A f tero u r d e c isio n to d a y , co u rts w i l l cont i nue t o i nqui r e i nt o confusion , as t heydi d i n bot h of t ho s e c a s e s . Si n c e KP P e r ma n e n t M a k e - Up h a s a l t e r ed t he l ands cape , how ever , w e bel i eve i ti s cl ea r th at l i kel i hood of confus i on n eed not , and s houl d not , be s ol el ydet erm i nat i ve of nom i nat i ve fa i rus e. Fai r nes s i s a di s t i nctconce ptfr om c o n f u s i o n , a n d i ts h o u l d b e m e a s u r e d t h r o u g h a d i s t i n c ti n q u i r y.

28 cons i dert he appl i cat i o n of nom i nat i ve fa i rus e doctr i ne s i nce K P Per m anentM ake- U p has embra ced this l ogi c. T y , I nc. v. P u b l’ n s Int’l , L td., N o . 9 9 C 5 5 6 5 , 2 0 0 5 W L 4 6 4 6 8 8 , at * 6 -8 (N

. D

. Il l. F eb

. 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 ). Second, w hi l e t he concur r ence w or r i es t hata nomi nat i ve us e def endantw i l l be over l ybur dened und er ourbi fur cat ed ap p roa ch , w e b eli ev e th at his ap p roa ch is actua ll ym o re bur dens om e t o s uch a de fenda nt

. I f the fa ct or s fordet erm i ni ng f a irn e ss w e re in c o rp o ra ted in to th e lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n tes t,29 a p l a i n t i f

f ’ s s h o wi n g o f

c o n f u s i o n mi g h twe l l o v e r whe l m a defe ndant ’ s s how i ng of fa i rus e. T hi s w oul d es s ent i al l yfor ce a defe ndantas s er t i ng nom i nat i ve fai r us e t o negat e al l l i kel i hood o f conf us i on t o s ucce ed, a pr opos i t i on t hatt he Supr eme C o u rt r ej ect ed i n K P Per m anentM ake- U p. U nderourapproa ch, t he defe ndanthas no dut yt o negat e co n fusi on as s uch, butr ather m u s t m e re ly sh o w t h a t its u s e o f th e p la in tif

f ’s m a rk is f

a ir , a bur den w hi ch, b y co n tr ast , i s notcumber s om e. T hus , i ti s our v i e w t h a tt h e b i f

u r c a t e d a p p r o a c h i s u l t i ma t e l yl e s s b u r d e n s o me t o a nomi nat i ve us e def

endantt han the ana l y s i s t he conc ur r ence p ro p o s e s . F i n a l l y , we b e l i e v e t h a tt h e b i f u r c a t e d a p p r o a c h t h a twe ado pt t od ay i s m ore w orkable t han a un i fi ed co nfu si on / fai rness t es t

. W e l eave t he now fami l i art es tforl i kel i hood of conf us i on large ly in ta c t an d in the fo rm in w h ich d istri ct co u rt s are accust om ed to app l y i ng i t

. O ur t estfor no m i nati ve fa i r use cons i der s di s t i nctfac t or s t hatar e r eadi l ys us cept i bl e t o j udi ci al i nqui r y . B ycontr as t , t he conc ur r ence w oul d i ncorpor at e s ever al new cons i der at i ons i nt o t he al r eadyl engthyt en-pa r tt es tfor confus i on and as k di s t r i ctcour t s t o bal ance a pl ai nt i ff’ s s how i ng of co nfu si on against a defe nd ant’ s show i ng of fai r use. B ecause confus i on and fa i r nes s ar e s epar at e and di s t i nctconce pt s t hat ca n co- exi s t , bl endi ng t hem t ogetheri nt o one t es ti s , t o our m i nd, a much l es s m anage abl e appr oach.30 B . T h e P rop er T est F or L i kel i hood of C onf usi on A s w e have not ed, and as t he N i nt h C i r cui ti n N ew K i ds on t he B l ock al s o s t at ed, t he “l i kel i hood of conf us i on” t es tdoes not l end i t s el f ni cel y t o a nom i nat i ve fai r us e fa ctpat t ern. T he t r adi t i onal l i kel i hood of conf us i on t es thas been se t for t h i n our cas e l aw , s peci fi cal l y i n Scot t Paper C o. v. Scot t ’ s L i qui d G ol d, I nc. , 589 F. 2d 1225 ( 3d C i r . 1978) and I nt er s pace C orp. v. L app, Inc. , 72 1 F

. 2d 46 0, 46 3 (3d C i r. 19 83 ). It i s a m ult i -fact or t est t hatas s es s es t he fol l ow i ng:

(1) d eg ree o f sim il arityb etw ee n the o w n er’s m ark and the al l eged i nfr i ngi ng m ark; ( 2) s t r ength of the ow ner ’ s m ark; ( 3) p ri ce o f t h e go o d s a n d o th e r fa ctors i n d i c a t i v e o f

th e c a r e a n d a t t e n t i on expec t ed of c ons um er s w h en maki ng a pur chas e; ( 4) l ength of t i m e th e d efendanthas us ed the m ar k w i t hout e v i d e nce of act ual confus i on;31 ( 5 ) i nt ent of t he defenda nt i n a d o p t i ng t he m ark; ( 6) evi dence of ac tual confus i on; ( 7) w hether t he goods , t hough notcompet i ng, ar e mar ket ed thr ough t he s ame channel s of t r a d e a n d a d v e r t i s e d t h r o u g h t h e s a me m edi a; ( 8 ) t he ext ent t o w hi ch t he t a r get s of t he par t i es ’ s al es eff

or t s ar e the s ame; ( 9) t he re l at ion s hi p of t he goods i n t he mi nds of c o n s u me r s b e c a u s e o f

t h e s i mi l a r i t yof funct i on; and ( 10) ot her fac t s s ugges t i ng t h at the cons um i ng p u b lic m ig h t ex p e c t th e p rio r o w n e r to m a n u f a c tu r e a p r o d u c ti n t h e d e f e n d a n t 's m arketor that he i s l i kelyt o ex pan d in to th a t m a rk e t. 589 F. 2d at1229.
W e ha ve c ome t o c a l l t he s e fa c t or s t he “ Lap p” fa c t ors. A lth o u g h th e y a re o f

ten h e lp f u l in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a c e rta in us e of a m ar k i s l i kel yt o confus e cons um ers, w e have32 r ec o g n iz ed that“the Lanham A ctdoes notr equi r e thatt heybe fol l ow ed pr eci s el ys o l ong as t he r el evantcompar i s ons s ugges t ed byt he t es t ar e m ade. ” A & H Spor t s w ear I I , 237 F. 3d 198, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2000)

. I n t he cont extof a nom i nat i ve us e of a mar k, s uch as t he one w e ar e pr es ent ed w i t h her e, cert ai n L app fac t or s ar e eit h erunw or kabl e ornots ui t ed orhel pful as i ndi cat or s of conf

us i on i n t hi s cont ext

. T hati s bec au se, by defi ni t i on, nom i nat i ve us e i nvol ves t he us e of a n o ther ’s t radem ark i n o rdert o d escr i be the t radem ark ow ner’ s o wn pr oduct

. Fur t her , cert ai n of the Lapp fac tors appl i ed m echa ni cal l yw oul d i nevi t abl ypoi ntt ow ar ds l i kel i hood of c o n f u sio n w h e re n o lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n m a y a c tu a llye x ist. T hus , w e mustt ai l ort he t es t and m eas ur e onl ythos e fa ct or s t hat a re m e a n in g f

u l an d p ro b a tiv e in th e c o n tex t o f n o m in a tiv e f a ir us e. Speci fi cal l y , t he fi r s t t w o L app fac t or s w oul d i ndi cat e a lik e lih o o d o f c o n f

u sio n in a c a se su c h a s this o n e sim p ly beca use the m ark is be ing em p loy ed in a n o m in ati v e m an n er. B yw a yo f

e x a m p le, lo o k in g a t th e sim ilarityo f th e m a rk w o u ld a u to m a tica llylea d to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e u se is lik e lyto c o n f u se sim p lyb e c a u se th e m a rk is n o t m e re lysim ilar , it is i dent i cal

. T he fi r s t L app fac t or does not l eave anyr oom fort he c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e c o n tex t o f

th e u s e – i.e., th a t th e m a rk is bei ng us ed t o des cr i be the pl ai nt i ff’ s ow n pr oduct

. T her efor e, i ti s notappr opr i at e foranal y s i s i n a nomi nat i ve us e ca s e.33 L ooki ng att he s t r ength of C C E ’ s m arks i n t hi s cas e, and i n m os tnom i nat i ve us e ca s es , w oul d al s o w ei gh i n favorof a f in d in g th a t th e u se is lik e lyto c o n f u se . H o w e v e r, d e f

e n d a n ts in n o m in a tiv e u se c a s e s, lik e L T in th is c a se , fe e l th e yn e e d to u se th e a c tu a l m a rk to d e sc rib e th e p lain tiff ’s p ro d u c t beca use o f i t s v e r y s t r e n g t h a n d w h a t i t h a s c o m e t o r e p r e s e n t

. I n r e a l i t y, i n m any s uch cas es , t he us e of t he name maybe the onl yw ayfor d e f e n d a n t to e a silya n d p r e c is e lyre f e r to p lain tiff ’s p ro d u c t in a w ay t hat w i l l be under s t ood bycons um er s . A ccor di ngl y , t he m ar ks ’ s t r ength i s notr eal l ypr obati v e of confus i on her e, w hereas it w oul d be i f def endantw er e pas s i ng off i t s goods u n d e r a s im ila r m a rk

. W e fi nd t hatal l of the otherL app fact or s , w hi l e perhaps notappr opr i at e foranal y sis i n t hi s par t i cul arcas e, coul d be anal y zed i n futur e no m i nat i ve us e ca s es , dependi ng on t he fac tual s i tuat i on. For exampl e, i n t hi s cas e, l ooki ng atw hether t he goods ar e m ar ket ed t hr ough t he same channe l s oradvert i s ed in th e sa m e m e d ia w o u ld b e a m isle a d in g in d ica to r in det ermi n i n g t h e t ru e l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n f u s i o n . I t wou l d b e of li tt le re l evanc e i n t hi s cas e w hetherL T m arket ed i t s s ervi ces t hr ough t he s ame c hannel s as C C E beca us e LT i s notat t empt i ng to u se C C E ’s m a rk s to re f e r t o L T ’s o w n se rv ice s, b u t ra th e r is u sin g th e m a rk s to re f

e r to C C E ’s s e rv ice s. T h e re f o re , itw o u ld al m os tbe expe ct ed thatL T and m o st otherdefe ndant s i n a n o m in a tiv e u se c a se w o u ld m a rk e t th e m se lv e s th ro u g h a m e d ia in w h ich th e m a rk s to w h ich th e ya re re f e rrin g w o u ld b e e a sily re cog nized and hav e m eaning o r r el evan ce, nam el ychan n e ls sim ilar to th o se u se d b y p lain tiff. H o w e v e r, th e re m a yb e c e rta in situ ati o n s, su ch as th at en co u n tered in N ew K ids (w h ere new s paper s us ed the N ew K i ds ’ m ark t o i nqui r e of r eade r s , for a pr i ce, t hei rfee l i n g s ab outt he gr oup) , w her e the cha nnel s of34 m a rk e tin g a re so d iss im ilar th a t ev id e n c e a s to th is f a c to r c o u ld m i t i g a t e a g a i n s ta f

i n d i n g o f l i k e l i h o o d o f

c o n f u s i o n . S i m i l a r l y, in lo o k in g a t w h e th e r th e tar g e ts o f th e p a rties ’ m a rk e tin g e f f o rts ar e the s ame, one coul d expec ta fa i rus e def en dantt o be re a c h in g o u t to a g ro u p o f c o n su m e r s w h o a r e lik e lyto r ecogni ze t he m ar k. T he fa ctthatL T m arket s i t s s ervi ces t o r eal es t at e cons um er s m akes s ens e. T hes e ar e t he verypeopl e w ho a re lik e lyto re c o g n ize a n d a p p re c iate C C E ’s m a rk s a n d b e a b le t o e v a l u a t e t h e b e n e f

i t t h a t CCE’ s p u rp o r t e d a s s o c i a t i o n wi t h LT c o u ld b rin g to th e m in th e se a rc h f o r a ho m e . T h is is n o t li k e ly t o confus e i n t he s ame w ay as w oul d be the ca s e i f the def endant is pa ssing o ff

p lai n ti ff ’s g o o d s as i ts o w n o r u sing a si m il ar m ark to th a t o f th e p lain tiff

, b u t th is f

a c to r sh o u ld n o t b e c o m p lete ly el i m i nat ed fr om a di s t r i ctcour t ’s ar s enal i n eval uat i ng lik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u s io n in a n o m in a tiv e u s e c a s e . In the con t ext of t he fact s of t he case b efore us, w e w ill tu rn o u r f o c u s to th o se L a p p f

a c to rs th a t ap p e a r m o st re lev a n t in as s es s i ng l i kel yconfus i on. T hes e i ncl ude: ( 1) t he pr i ce of t he goods and ot herfac t or s i ndi cat i ve o f th e c are an d att en ti o n ex p ec ted o f c o n su m ers w hen maki ng a pur chas e; (2) the len g th o f ti m e the d ef en d an t has u sed the m ark w i t houtevi dence of ac tual confus i on; ( 3) t he i nt ent of the defe ndant i n adopt i ng t he mar k; and ( 4) t he evi dence of ac tual confus i on.35 In f o c u sin g o n th e se f

a c to rs, th e c o u rt w ill b e b e tter a b le to asses s w hethercon sum ers are l ik e l yt o b e con fused byt he u se notbeca us e of i t s nom i nat i ve natur e, butr atherbeca us e of the ma n n e ri n wh i c h t h e ma r k i s b e i n g n o mi n a t i v e l y e mp l o y e d

. Of cour s e the det er m i nat i on of w hi ch fa ct or s ar e r el evantand probati ve in a gi ven fact ual s et t i ng shou l d b e m ade in t he fir st i ns t ance by t he D i s t r i ct C our t , but her e w e pr ovi de ourvi ew on this i ssu e a s g u idan ce , lestthis m att er ag ain s h o u ld co m e b ef o re a p an el of this C o u rt o n the issu e o f w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt e x a m in e d th e a p p ro p ri a te f a c to rs . V i ew ed i n t he cont extof the pr es ent cas e, i ti s appar ent w hy t h e s e f

a c t o r s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e : t h e ya n a l y z e t h e l i k e l i h ood t hata cons um erw il l be confus ed as t o t he r el at i ons hi p or a f f ili a tio n b e tw e e n L T a n d C C E , the h e a rt o f th e n o m in a tiv e f

a ir us e s i tuat i on. Focus i ng on t he ca r e and at t ent i on expec t ed of c o n s u me r s wh e n ma k i n g a p u r c h a s e o ru s i n g a s e r v i c e a l l o ws t he courtt o under s t and the true r i s k t hat co n su m ers maybe co n fu sed m ere lyb ec au se o f th eir ow n inattention

. M o re o v er, f o c u sin g o n e v id e n c e o f

a c tu a l co n f

u sio n (f a c to rs 2 a n d 4 ) w ill a llo w th e D istric t C o u rt to tru lyu n d e rsta n d w h e th e r th is is m er el ya theor et i cal orhypot het i ca l f earof the pl ai nt i ff or w hethert her e is r eal dangert hatcons um er s ar e l i kel yt o be c o n f u s e d

. L as t l y , anal y zi ng t he i nt ent of t he def endanti n us i ng t he m ar k w i l l al l ow t he cour t t o under s t and the def endant ’ s r eas on forut i l i zi ng t he ma rk i n t he mannert hati tdi d. T hati s , i f the co u rtfin d s tha t th e d ef

en d an t m ad e u se o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s m ark w i t h t he ver y purpos e of caus i ng cons um er s t o t hi nk t he pl ai nt i ff endor s es ors pons or s pl ai nt iff’s good ors ervi ce, t hen the lik e lih o o d th a t co n su m e rs w ill b e c o n f u se d a s toW e r evi ew a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s concl us i on as t o l i kel i hood 5 of conf us i on forcl ear err or . A & H Spor t s w ear I I , 237 F. 3d 198, 2 3 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). 36 endor s ement / aff

i l i at i on i s gr eat er . W her eas t he tr adi t i onal “i nt ent ” pr ong l ooks at i nt ent t o adopt a s i m i l ar m ark, here t he k e y i n q u i r y i s w h e t h e rt h e m a r k i s b e i n g u s e d s o a s t o c o n v e y a c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e p a rties th a t m a yn o t ex ist.
W e hol d t oday t hatt he bur den of pr ovi ng l i kel i hood of c o n f u sio n , ev e n in a n o m in a tiv e u se c a se , sh o u ld re m a in w ith t he pl ai nt i ff a nd t hatt hes e fourfac t or s ar e the es s ence of the i nq uiry , al t ho ug h o t hers m ayprove u seful i n cert ai n co ntext s. H er e, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d pl ace t hi s bur den on C C E , butt he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o ana l y zed c er t ai n L app fa ct or s t hatw e have concl uded ar e i nappr opr i at e i n the cont extof thi s nom i nat i ve fa i ru s e c a s e . Fu r t h e r , i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o f c e r t a i n o f

t h e f our re le v a n t f

a c to rs w a s s o m e w h a t im p re c is e . W e w ill re m a n d f

o r th e D istric t C o u rt to in q u ire a s to w hethe r conf

us i on w as l i kel yi n l i ghtof ourcl ar i fi cat i on of w hi ch fa ct or s ar e appl i cabl e i n t hi s cas e an d the fol l ow i ng d isc u ss io n o f th e w a yin w h ich th e f o u r re lev a n t f

a c to rs s h o u ld be appl i ed. 5

F act or 1: T he P ri ce of t he G oods and O t her F act ors I ndi cat i ve of

t he C are and A t t ent i on E x pect ed o f

C onsum ers W hen M aki ng a P u rch ase T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed that“w e ar e t al ki ng aboutr eal es t at e pur chas es w hi ch i n r efe r ence t o m os tcons um ers i s t he37 m o st i m p o rt an t pu rch ase b o th at the t im e an d , in m o st pe o p le’s i ns t a n c e s , i n t h e i r e n t i r e l i v e s . ” ( Tr a n s . o f Or a l Opi n i o n at J A 735. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ect to acknow l edge a nd cons i dert he i m por t ance of a r eal es t at e pur chas e t o t he ave r age c o n s u me r . One wou l d e x p e c tt h a tc ons um e r s g o i n g t o LT w e b site ’s “ F in d a R e a lto r” se c tio n w o u ld b e v e ryc a re f u l in l earni ng aboutt he var i ous r eal t or s i n L T ’ s netw or k. T he degr ee of ca r e w ei ghs agai ns ta fi ndi ng of l i kel yconfus i on. Fac t or 2: The Lengt h of Ti m e t he D e f e ndant has us ed t he M ark w i t hout Evi dence of A ct ual C onf usi on T he D i s t r i ctC our tconfl at ed thi s fac t orw i t h t he d e f e n d a n t’s la c h e s d e f

e n se a n d , the re f

o re , fa iled to w e ig h in L T ’ s favort he fa ctt hat , acc or di ng t o t he re cor d, C C E ’ s m arks had bee n us ed forat l eas t fi ve y ear s w i t h l i t t l e evi dence of ac tual cons um erconfus i on.
F a c to r 3 : T h e In te n t o f t h e D e fe n d a n t in A dopti ng t he M ark
T he D i s t r i c tCou r ta p p e a r s t o h a v e i n f e r r e d i mpr o p er in ten t o n th e p a rt o f

L T f ro m its v e ry u se o f C C E ’s m a rk s. T h is fi ndi ng w as err oneous w i t hout fur t her evi dent i ary s uppor t

. T he r el evantques t i on in thi s cont exti s notw hethert he def endant in ten d e d to u se th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk , w h ich it a lw a y s h a s in a f a ir use case, bu t w hether i tused the m ark w i t h the i ntentt o co nfu se t he publ i c as t o t he re la tio n sh ip betw een the def endantand the pl ai nt i ff. U s e of the mar k al one i s nots uffi ci ent l ypr obat i ve ofT h is pr in c ip le e m e rg e s fr o m o u r an a lo g o u s h o ld in g s in 6 t r adi t i onal t r ademar k i nfr i ngementcas es , i n w h ich w e have n o ted th a t “a d e f

e n d a n t’s m e re in ten t to c o p y , w ith o u t m o re , is nots uffi ci ent l y pr obat i ve of t he defenda nt ’ s s ucce s s i n caus i ng c o n f u s io n to w e ig h s u c h a f in d in g in th e p la in tif

f ’s f a v o r.” A & H Spor t s w earI I , 237 F. 3d at225- 26. R ather , t he pl ai nt i ff sh o u ld m ak e som e sho w ing that the de fe n d an t ad o p ted its m ark w i t h the i ntentt o co nfu se or decei ve th e p ub l i c. Id. ; see al so C heckpoi ntSy s . I nc. v. C heck Poi ntSoft w ar e Techs

. , I nc. , 269 F. 3d 270, 286 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( not i ng t hat “a pa r t y ’ s i nt ent i onal us e of a not herpar t y ’ s m ark t o caus e conf us i on ” w ei ghs i n favor o f f ind ing li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he co ncu rr ence a rgues t hat our no m i nati ve fa i r use 7 defe ns e i s m er el yt hi s s ame i nt enti nqui ry d resse d i n di ffe r ent cl othing. T he t es t s forconfus i on and fa i r nes s ar e not du pli cat i ve, ho w ever, becau se a pl ai nti ff can a lso est abli sh 38 s uch i nt ent

. T he pl aintiff m us ts how t hatt he def endant 6 i nt ended the publ i c t o bel i eve t hatt he pl ai nt i ff e ndor s ed or s o m e h o w s u p p o rt e d its p ro d u c ts o r s e rv ic e s . T her e ar e m yr i ad fac t or s t o w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff m ay p o i nt to d e m o n stra te th a t a d e f e n d a n t in ten d e d to c o n f u se th e p u b lic a s to its re latio n sh ip w ith th e p lain tif f

. F o r e x a m p le, c o u rts in t r adi t i onal t r ademar k i nfr i ngementcas es have cons i der ed a def e n d a n t ’ s per s i s t ence i n adopt i ng a mar k des pi t e bei ng w arned of pot ent i al confus i on, K os Phar m s . , I nc. v. A ndr x C orp. , 369 F. 3d 700, 721 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , and evi dence of a de fenda nt ’ s bad f a ith , A & H S p o rt s w e a r I I, 2 3 7 F .3 d a t 2 2 6

. O n r emand, t he D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld in q u ire a s to w h e th e r a n y a n a lo g o u s f a c ts orevi dence of re cor d ar e pr es enther e. I f s o, t he C our tm ay w ei gh t hi s i n favorof a f i ndi ng of l i kel yconfus i on. 7li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion thr o u g h sev en o ther L ap p fa ctors bes i des i nt ent

. I t i s t he ci r cumst ance i n w hi ch a c our tdoes not fi nd bad i ntentbu t do es fi nd con fusi on t hat a nom i nati ve fa i r use defense w ill b e m o st u se f u l. 39 Fac t or 4: The Evi de nc e of A c t ual C onf

us i on. I n t hi s case, C C E pr es ent ed no evi dence of ac tual co n fu sion b ef

o re the D istri ct C o u rt

. In fa ct, as th e D istri ct C o u rt not ed, fr om t he C our t ’ s fi r s tm eet i ng w i t h t he part i es , t heyhad a g re e d th a t th e y w o u ld o f f e r no e v id e n c e o f a c tu a l co n f u sio n to t he C our t

. T her efor e, t hi s fac t or s houl d cl ear l y w ei gh i n favor o f L T

. W e w i l l r emand t he cas e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforpr oper appl i cat i on of thes e fa ct or s . I n det erm i ni ng w hetherconfus i on i s l i kel y , as w e not ed i n A & H Spor t s w earI I , 237 F. 3d 198, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , “di ffe r ent fact or s m aybe ac cor ded di ffe r ent w e ig h ts d e p e n d in g o n th e p a rt ic u la r f a c tu a l s e ttin g .” If

C C E is ab le t o m eeti t s bur den of s how i ng l i kel i hood of conf us i on on r emand, t he b u rde n of pr oof w i l l t hen s hi ftt o L T t o s how t hat t he us e i s a nomi nat i ve fa i rus e. C . T h e A ff

i rm ati ve D efense of N om i n ati ve F air U se U n d er the n o m inative f air use testad o p ted b ythe C o u rt of A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , a def endant m u st p r ove: ( 1) t hat t he produc t or ser vice i n quest i on i s on e no tre a d ily i dent i fi abl e w i t hout us e of t he t r ademar k; ( 2) t hat onl y s o m uch o f th e m a rk o r m a rk s is u se d a s is re a so n a b ly n e c e s sa rytoS e e , T h e N e w K id s o n th e B lo c k v . G a n n e tt S a tellite 8 Inf o rm ati o n N etw o rk , In c ., 9 7 1 F

. 2 d 3 0 2 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ); K a re e m A b d u l-Ja b a r v . G e n e ra l M o to rs C o rp ., 8 5 F .3 d 4 0 7 (9 th C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ); C airns v

. F ran k li n M int C o . , 2 9 2 F

. 3 d 1 1 3 9 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); P laybo yE n ter p rise s, In c . v . W e lle s , 2 7 9 F .3 d 7 9 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); B ro th e r R e c o rd s, In c . v . Ja rd in e , 3 1 8 F .3 d 9 0 0 (9 th C i r . 2002) ; H orphag R es ear ch L t d. v. Pel l egr i ni , 337 F. 3d 1036 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) ; Pl ayboyE nt erpr i s es , I nc. v. N et s cape C o m m u n ic a tio n s C o rp ., 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 0 2 0 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 40 i dent i fyt he pr oductors ervi ce; and ( 3) t hatt he us er di d not hi ng th a t w o u ld , in c o n

ju n c tio n w ith th e m a rk , su g g e st s p o n so rsh ip o r endor s ement byt he tr ademar k hol der

. N ew K i ds on t he B lo c k , 9 7 1 F .2 d a t 3 0 8 . In th e N in th C irc u it, if th e se e lem e n ts are p rov en , the u se is “fa ir ” a n d d ef en d an t w il l prev ail

. F u rth er, t hi s nom i nat i ve fa i ru se tes t , as di s cus s ed above , r epl ace s t he l i kel i hood of conf

us i on t es ti n the C our tof A p p ea ls fort he N in th C i rcui t

. W e m ustdecide t he ex t ent t o w hich w e sh o u ld adoptt hi s t es tas ourow n, m i ndful t hatw e w i l l empl oy i tas an aff i rm at i ve def

ens e t o be pr oven bydefe ndantaft erl i kel i hood of conf us i on has been de m ons t r at ed byt he pl ai nt i ff.
W e a re tem p ted to u se th e th re e -p ro n g e d N in th C irc u it t es toutr igh t , as i thas w i t hs t ood t he t es tof t i m e, has been t i nker ed w i t h i n no l es s t h an s even opi ni ons . M or eover , t he 8 N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls is the o n lyC o u rt o f A p p e a ls to have s peci fi cal l ycr aft ed i t s ow n t es tfornom i nat i ve fai r us e. I n d e e d , t h e S u p r e me Co u r td e c i s i o n i n KP P e r ma n e n tM a k e - Up i nvol ved a r ever s al of t he m os t r ece nt N i nt h C i r cui t opi ni on on t he i s s ue of “ fai rus e.” A s p rol i fi c as t he j ur i s prudence of the N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s has been in thi s ar ea, t he S up rem e C o u rt’s rej ect i on of it s vi ew of h ow t he fa i r use defe ns e w or ks i n a cl as s i c fa i r us e cas e em bol dens us t o exami ne41 t he el ement s of the N i nt h C i r cui t C our tof A ppeal s ’ nom i nat i ve f a iru s e te s t a b it m o re c lo s e ly.
In so do ing , w e co n clud e th at the t est as w ri tte n s u ff ers fr om a l ack of cl ar i t y . T hi s i s evi denti n t he cont or t i ons t hatt he N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls itse lf

h a s g o n e th ro u g h in appl y i ng i t , t he confus i on t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our th ere e n c o u n te r e d in its a p p lica tio n , an d in o u r c o n v ictio n th a t a m o d if ied in q u iry w o u ld a id in re a c h in g th e rig h t re su lt. W e w ill adj us tt he t es tt o i ncl ude a s l i ghtl y di ffe r ents etof con si derat i on s: 1. Is the us e of pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark nece s s aryt o des cr i be ( 1) pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct or s ervi ce and ( 2) defe ndant ’ s pr oductor s er vi ce?
2 . Is o n lyso m u c h o f th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk u se d a s is necessaryt o d escr i be p l ai nti ff’s pr od ucts or services ?
3. D oes t he def

endant ’ s conduct or l anguage r efl ectt he tru e a n d ac cu rate relati o n sh ip betw ee n p lai n ti ff an d d ef en d an t’ s p r o d u c t s o rs e r v i c e s ?
T h e f o ll o w ing d iscu ssion ex p lai n s h o w thes e f ac tors s houl d be appl i ed.
1. Fi r s t Pro ng T he fir stel em ent of the N i nth C i rcui t C ou rtof A pp eal s’ t es ti nvol ved an i nqui r yonl yi nt o t he nec es s i ty o f usi ng pl ai nti ff ’s t r ademar k t o des cr i be pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct

. H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tinstead – pr obabl ym i s t akenl y– exami ned the42 nece s s i t yof the us e of pl ai nt i ff’ s t r ademar k i n or dert o des cr i be defe ndant ’ s pr oduct

. See C ai r ns v. Fr ankl i n M i ntC o. , 292 F. 3d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 5 3 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )

. T h e f i r s tp r o n g o f

Ne w Ki d s On T h e B lo c k is at b e st co n f u sin g a n d a t w o rst in c o m p lete . W h ile i ts houl d be as ked w hetherplai n ti ff’ s pr oductneeds t o be des cr i bed byr efe r ence t o i t s m ark, s hou ld i tnotal s o be e x a m in e d w h e th e r d e f

e n d a n t’s u se o f

it, a t all, is n e c e ss a ryto a c c u ra telyd e sc rib e w h a t d e f e n d a n t d o e s o r se lls, o r w h e th e r its r efe r ence t o pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark i s actual l ygr atui t ous ? T he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s i nqui r y i nt o t he l at t er as pect w as not cal l ed forundert he N e w K id s O n T h e B lo c k tes t, bu t ita c tu a llyse e m s e n tirely a p p ro p ri a te

. T he focus on t he nec es s i t yof the mar k i n or derfor defe ndantt o des cr i be pl ai nt i ff ’ s pr oductm akes s ens e i n t he c o n tex t o f

n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se , w h e re th e p la in ti f f ’s m a rk is b e i n g u s e d b e c a u s e i ti d e n t i f i e s t h e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s p r o d u c t

. We fu rth er no te that the co u rt n ee d n o t fin d that the u se o f th e m ark i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e i n o r d e rt o f i n d t h i s f a c t o rf u l f i l l e d

. F o r , a s we h a v e sta ted b e f

o re , “[ t]h e L a n h a m A c t d o e s n o t co m p e l a c o mp e t i t o rt o r e s o r tt o s e c o n d

- b e s tc o mmun i c a t i o n . ” G. D. Sear l e & C o. , 7 1 5 F

. 2 d 837 at842. Fur t her m or e, as t he N in th C irc u it h a s o b se rv e d :

it i s o f ten v irtu a llyim p o ss ib le to r efe rt o a par t i cul arpr oductfor p urp o s e s o f

c o mp a r i s o n , c r i t i c i s m, poi nt of r efe r ence oranyot hers uch purpos e w i t houtus i n g t he mar k. For example, r efe r ence t o a l ar ge a u to m o b ile m a n u f

a c tu re r ba se d in M ich ig a n w o u ld n o t d if f e re n tiateA l t hough t he t es tcr aft ed b y t he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof 9 A ppeal s di d noti ncl ude thi s as pectundert he fi r s t p rong, as s uch, nonethel es s , i tdoes al l ude t o i tas par tof the s eco nd p r o n g , a s we d i s c u s s b e l o w. 43

a m o n g th e B ig T h re e ; re f e re n c e to a l ar ge J apane s e ma nufac tur erof hom e el ectr oni cs w oul d narr ow t he fi el d to a do zen o r m ore com pan i es. M uch us eful s oci al and comm er ci al di s course w o u ld b e a ll but i m pos s i bl e i f s peake r s w er e under th re a t o f a n in f rin g e m e n t law su it everyt i m e t heym ade r efe r ence t o a per s on, companyorpr oductby us i ng i t s t r ademar k.

N ew K i ds on t he B l ock, 971 F. 2d 302 at 3 0 7

. T her efor e, t he cour tneed onl ybe s at i s fi ed thatt he i dent i fi cat i on bythe defe n d an tof pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oductors ervi ce w oul d be r ender ed s ig n if ic a n tly m o re d if

f ic u lt w ith o u t u s e o f

th e m a rk

. A d d iti o n a lly , w e b e liev e th a t itis im p o rta n t f o r a c o u rt to under s t and how n ec ess aryt he us e of the mar k i s t o t he iden ti fica ti o n o f d ef

en d an t’ s p rod u ct. T h at i s, the m o re depende ntt he r eady i dent i fi cat i on of defe ndant ’ s pr oducti s on t he des cr i pt i on of pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct t hr ough t he empl oym entof pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark, t he more l i kel yi ti s t hatt he us e i s a fa i rone. 944 In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt lo o k e d a t th is tes t o n lyin r egar d t o d efe n d a n t’s p ro d u c t. O n re m a n d th e C o u rt sh o u ld addi t i onal l yfocus on w hether r equi r i ng L T t o des cr i be pl ai nt i ff C C E ’s s e rv ice s w ith o u t u sin g it s m a rk is a f o rc e d re v e rsio n to s econd- bes tcomm uni cat i ons . C ons i der at i ons su ch as t he sim p licityo f

d e sc rip tio n a n d th e lik e lih o o d th a t co n su m e rs w ill un derst and a given reference t o p l ai nti ff’s s ervi ces w i t ho ut use of the mar k ar e appr opr i at e t o t his a n aly s i s . See C ai r ns , 292 F. 3d at1153.
2. Se c ond Pr ong H er e aga i n, t he N ew K i ds O n T he B l ock t es tfocus es on t he “am o u n t ” of pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark t hati s us ed, as ki ng w hether o n lyso m u ch is use d as is n e c e s saryto d esc ri b e p lai n ti ff ’s pr oduct

. T hat focus on l i m i t i ng t he quantum us e o f t he at t r i but es of pl ai nt i ff’ s m arks ’ i s appr opr i at e, fori ti s t he us e of pl ai nt i ff’ s m ar ks that co n cer ns us . Y et , t he ca s e l aw of the N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls h a s e x p a n d e d o n th is p r o n g to i nqui r e, att hi s s t age, aboutt he def endant ’ s need t o us e of the m ar k, s t at i ng: [W ]ha t i s ‘reaso n ab lyn ec essa ryto ide n ti fythe p lai n ti ff ’s pr oductdi ffe rs f

rom cas e t o cas e . . . . W her e, as i n t he pr es ent cas e, t he desc r i pt i on of t he defenda nt ’ s pr oduct depends on t he d esc ri p ti o n o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s p rod u ct, m o re u se o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s tr ad em ark is ‘ rea so n ab lyn ec essa ryto iden ti fythe p lai n ti ff ’s p rod u ct’ th an in ca ses w h ere the de scripti o n o f th e d ef en d an t’ s produ ctdo es notd ep en d o n the d esc ri p ti o n o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s p ro d u c t.45 C ai r ns , 292 F. 3d at1154. Si nce w e have pos i t i oned the as s es s m entof the def

endant ’ s n ee d to us e pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark as p a rt o f th e f irst in q u iry , w e e lim in a te th e c o n f u sio n in h e re n t in i nqu ir i ng i nt o “nee d” att he s econd s t ep. T hus , underour appr o ac h, t he s econd pr ong t es t s onl yw hethert he quantum of th e p la in tif

f ’s m a rk u s e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te

. In a n a ly z in g th is f

a c to r, th e D istric t C o u rt e ss e n tially pr edet er m i ned the out come of t he s econd pr ong byi t s fi ndi ng as t o the fi rs tprong . T he D i stri ct C ou rt fou nd t hat be cause t he u se of C C E ’ s m ar ks w as notnece s s aryt o i dent i fy L T ’ s s ervi ces as a w h o le u n d e r th e f

irst p ro n g , the u se c o u ld n o t p o ss ib lyb e o n ly so m u c h a s w a s n e c e ss a ry . B u t th e p ro p e r fo c u s u n d e r th is p ro n g is o n w h e th e r o n ly s o m u c h o f p lain tiff ’s m a rk a s is r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o i dent i fypl ai nt i ff’ s pr oductors ervi ce has been us ed bydefe ndant

. C ons i der at i on s h oul d be gi ven at t hi s s t a g e t o t h e ma n n e r i n whi c h t h e ma r k i s p o r t r a y e d

. For exam p le, di d t he def

endantus e pl ai nt i ff’ s di s t i nct i ve l et t er i ng w h e n u sin g th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk o r d id th e d e f e n d a n t, a s in th is case, si m plyuse block lett ers t o spell ou tplai nti ffs’ nam es?
In h is c o n c u rrin g o p in io n , Ju d g e F ish e r p o s its th a t b o th P rongs O ne an d T w o o f ou r m od i fi ed n om i nati ve fa i r use t est are , and s houl d be, s ubs um ed i n t he l i kel i hood of conf us i on an aly sis. H e su g g ests th at th e n ec essityo f u sing the m ark ( Pr on g 1 ) a nd t he r e a s on a bl e ne s s of t ha tus e ( Pr on g 2 ) a r e j ust anotherw ayof exa m i ni ng t he def endan t’ s i nt enti n us i ng t he m ar k. T hi s i s a mi s char act er i zat i on of both t he i nt ent fac t or underL app, as des cr i bed above , and the fi r s tt w o pr ongs of the n o m in a tiv e u se d e f

e n se w e e sp o u se . E v e n if it i s f o u n d th a t a defe nd ant’ s i ntent i s i m proper and i t s use of a m ark cou l d cau se c o n f u sio n , the d e f

e n d a n t c o u ld c o n c e iv a b lyp ro v e th a t ev e n its46 pot ent i al l yconfus i ng us e i s fai r beca us e i t i s r eas onabl yl i m i t ed a n d n e c e ss a ryu n d e r th e f irst tw o p ro n g s o f

o u r n o m in a tiv e f

a ir us e t es t

. T hes e cont our s of fa i r nes s ar e n o t rec o gni zed byour concurr i ng col l eague , but t hey ar e fundament al t o t he conce ptof f a i ru s e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s r e c e n td e c i s i o n i n KP Per m anentM ake- U p. 3. Thi r d Pro ng T h e N e w K id s te st a t th is sta g e a sk s w h e th e r th e u se r d id any t hing t hat w ou l d, i n co njunct i on w i t h the m ark, sugg est sp o n so rship o r en d o rsem en t bythe trad em ark h o lder. H o w ev er, w e b eli ev e the ap p rop ri ate q u esti o n sh o u ld b e a b itb roa d er: does the defe ndant ’ s conductorl anguage r efl ectt he true and a c c u ra te r e latio n sh ip b e tw e en p l ai nti f f a n d d e f e n d a n t’s p ro d u c ts ors er vi ces ? W e bel i eve thatt h e N inth C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s ’ focus on w hethert he us er ’ s condu ct i m pl i es e n d o rse m e n t m a yn o t tru lyre f lec t w h e th e r th e u se is f a ir beca us e s om et i m es t he pl ai nt i ff’ s r el ati o n s hi p w i t h defe ndant m aybe one of

endor s ement , butt he natur e of t he endor s ement as r efl ect ed bydefe ndant ’ s empl oym entof pl ai nt i f f’ s mar ks m ay notbe ac cura te. A defe ndant ’ s purpos eful por t r ay al of p lain tiff’s e n d o rsem en t of it s p rod u ct th rou g h d ef en d an t’ s co n d u ct or l an g u ag e do es no t n ec essa ri ly ren d er th e use u n fa ir , as l ong as t he depi ct i on of t he endor s ement i s acc ur ate. I n addi t i on, ourver s i on su g ges t s t hatw e ca n cons i dert he defe ndant ’ s fai l ur e t o s t at e orexpl ai n s om e asp ec tof the r el at i ons hi p, w her eas t he N ew K i ds ver s i on focus es on affirm at i ve acts , i

. e ., w h att he d efen dan tdid t o sug gest s p o n s o rs h ip

.47 In th is case , the D istri ct C o u rt co n clud ed that an o rdin ary co n su m er w o u ld loo k at L T ’s w eb sit e a n d c o n clud e tha t th ere w as s om e af

fi l i at i on betw een LT and the enum er at ed compani es . Fur t her , t he C our t i nferr ed fr om t he mer e pr es ence of the m ar ks an i nt enton t he partof LT t o conveyendor s ement o r a f f ili a tio n . O n re m a n d , th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld sp e c if ica lly det erm i ne i n anal y zi ng t hi s pr ong w hethert he por t r ay al of the re lati o n sh ip w a s a c c u ra te, a n d w h a t m o re th e d e f e n d a n t co u ld have done t o pr eventan i m pr operi nfer ence r egar di ng t he r el at i ons hi p. T he mer e pr es ence orus e of the m ark doe s not s ugges tunfai rne ss u n dert hi s pr ong. H er e, L T added a d iscl aim er, th e sig n ifi ca n ce o f w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt dow npl ay ed, s t at i ng t hat“Lendi ngT r ee i s nots pon s or ed byor aff i l i at ed w i t h t he par entfr anchi s orcompani es of anyof the par t i ci pat i ng m embers of i t s netw or k. ” ( T extfr om w w w . L endi ngT r ee. com at J A 687. ) Farfr om uni m por t ant , s uch a di s cl ai m erm us tbe cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he al l eged i nfr i ngeracc ur at el ypo rt ray ed the r el at i ons hi p t hat e x is te d b e tw e e n p la in tif f a n d d e f e n d a n t. S e e P la yb o yE n te rs ., 2 7 9 F .3 d a t 8 0 3 (f

in d in g th a t th e f

a c t th a t d e f

e n d a n t’s w e b site i ncl uded a c l ear d is cl ai m erof anyconnec t i on t o pl ai nt i ff sat i sfi ed thi s prong o f t he N i nth C i rcui tC ou rtof A p p e a ls’ t est fornom i nat i ve fa i rus e)

. T her efor e, the D is t r i ctC our ton r emand shoul d l ook at t he pr eci s e w ayi n w hi ch w hatt he defe ndants ai d, ordi d nots ay , ot hert han the m ere pr es ence of t he mar k on t he w eb si t e, m ayhave i nacc ur at el yi m pl i ed e n d o rse m e n t o r sp o n so rsh ip b y C C E

. T h e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld c o n s i d e rwhe t h e rt h e d i s c l a i me rwas a n a f f i r ma t i v e a c t i o n b yLT th a t e f f e c ti v e ly n e g a te d a n in a c c u r a te im p li c a ti o n o f sp o n so rsh ip o re n d o r s e me n tb yCCE.48 T he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s t es t fornom i nat i ve fa i rus e does not e x p l i c i t l yi n c l u d e a c c u r a c y wi t h i n t h e a n a l y s i s , b u t t h e S u p r e me C our thas r ecogni zed that“[a ] ccur acyof cour s e has t o be a cons i der at i on i n as s es sing fai rus e. ” K P Per m anentM ake- U p, I nc. , 125 S. C t. at 5 5 1. I n exami ni ng t he conduc tof the d e f e n d antt o det er m i ne w hethert he def endanthas done anyt hi ng to a f f irm a tiv e ly c a u se c o n su m e r c o n f u sio n , itis o n lyre a so n a b le t o cons i der t he pre ci s i on w i t h w hi ch the def endanthas des cr i bed i t s r el at i ons hi p w i t h pl ai nt i ff. I n this c as e, t he eva l uat i on of ac cu rac yw o u ld n ec essa ri lyincl u d e co n side rati o n o f L T ’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f

th e n a tu re a n d e x ten t o f its re latio n sh ip w i t h C C E and i t s agent s . T h i s w oul d i ncl ude the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s cons i der at i on of LT ’ s r efe r ence t o i t s aff i l i at i on w ith C C E b rok ers i n g en era l, rathe r th an ref ere n cing ea ch m o re acc ur at el ybyt hei r“d/b/ a/ ” t it le and w hethert hi s r ender ed the us e i nacc u r at e orw as s om ehow m i s l eadi ng as t o any endor s ement orr el at i ons hi p. V . C oncl usi on I n s um , w e hol d t oday t hat t he Lapp t es tforl i kel i hood of co n fu sion sti ll h as a n im p o rtan t place in a trad em ark i nfr i ngement cas e i n w hi ch the def endantas s er t s t he nomi nat i ve fai rus e def

ens e. I n t hi s cas e, the t es t s houl d focus on t he four relev an t fac tors: ( 1 ) th e p ri ce o f th e g o o d s an d o ther f ac tors i ndi cat i ve of the ca r e and at t ent i on expec t ed of cons um er s w hen m aki ng a pur chas e; ( 2) t he l ength of t i m e t he defenda nthas us ed t he mar k w i t hout evi dence of ac tual confus i on; ( 3) t he i nt entof t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a d o p t i n g t h e ma r k ; a n d ( 4 ) t h e e v i d ence of a c tu a l c o n f

u s io n .49 O nce pl ai nt i ff has m et i t s bur den of pr ov ing tha t confus i on i s l i kel y , t he bur den t hen s hi ft s t o defe ndantt o s how that it s n o m inative u se o f p lai n ti ff ’s m ark s is no n ethe less fa ir

. In th is C irc u it, w e h a v e to d a y a d o p ted a tes t f o r n o m in a tiv e f

a ir us e i n w hi ch a courtw i l l pos e thr ee que s t i ons : ( 1) I s t he us e of the p lai n tif

f’s m ark n ec essa ryto d esc ri b e b o th p lai n ti ff ’s p rod u ct or se rvice a n d d ef en d an t’ s p rod u ct or se rvice ? (2) Is o n lys o m u c h o f

th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk u se d a s is n e c e ss a ryto describe pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct s ors ervi ces ? (3) D oes t he d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t o r la n g u a g e re f lec t th e tru e a n d a c c u ra te r elat i ons hi p betw een pl ai nt i ff a nd defe ndant ’ s pr oduct s or s er vi ces ? If

eac h of thes e q u esti ons can be ans w er ed i n t he aff i r m at i ve, t he use w i l l be consi der ed a fai r one, r egar dl es s of w h e th e r l ik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u s io n e x is ts

. W e adopt a bi fur cat ed appr oach t hatt es t s forconfus i on and fa irnes s i n s epar at e i nqui r i es i n or dert o di s t r i but e the bur den of pr oof appr opr i at el ybetw een the part i es at eac h s t age of the analy si s. T he d efen dan thas no bu rden t o sho w fai rness unt i l t he pl ai nt i ff f

i r s ts ho w s confus i on. Fur t her m or e, by pr oper l y t r eat i ng nom i nat i ve fai r us e as an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, o u r a p p ro a c h a llo w s f

o r th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t a d istric t co u rt c o u ld fi nd a ce r t ai n l evel of conf us i on, buts t i l l ul t i m at el y det erm i ne t he us e t o be fa i r . B y contr as t , a uni fi ed l i kel i hood of conf us i on t es t w oul d r equi r e a def

endantt o negat e l i kel i hood of conf us i on b yu n d erc u tt ing the L ap p fa ctors. B ec au se th e S u p rem e C o u rt expl i ci t l yr ej ect ed s uch a pr opos i t ion i n K P Per m anentM akeU p , w e d e c lin e to a d o p t it

. W e w i l l t her efor e R E V E R SE t he or derof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt a n d R E M A N D f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith t hi s opi ni on.Interp ac e C o rp. v . L a p p , Inc

. , 7 2 1 F

. 2 d 4 6 0 (3d C ir

. 10 1 9 8 3 ). 50 C ent ur y 21 R eal Es t at e C or

por at i on, et

al

. v. Lendi ngTre e, I

nc. N o. 03- 4700
F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge , co n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt.
A s t he maj or i t ycorr ect l yconcl udes , pr operno m inat i ve u se is p e rm iss ib le u se , lea v in g th e c ritica l q u e sti o n o f h o w to fra m e the n o m inative u se a n aly sis. I co n cu r w ith the m ajority ’s “fi rm convi ct i on t hatt he bur den o f provi ng l i kel i hood of co n f u sion sh o u ld rem ain w ith the p lai n ti ff in a trad em ark in f rin g e m e n t ca se .” M a

j. O p . a t 2 4 . I als o c o n c u r in its con cl usi on t hat t his C ou rt ’s L app fact ors, w here r el evan t , m ust 10 b e u sed in the an aly sis. I th ere fo re join in the m ajority ’s j ud gm ent r em and i ng t he case fo r fur t her proceedings.
I departfr om m aj o ri ty , how ever , i n i t s adopt i on of a bi fur cated anal y s i s t hatl ooks fi r s tt o a truncat ed Lapp- fac t or tes t, fo llo w e d b ya n a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se o f “ n o m in a tiv e f

a ir us e. ” D es pi t e pr ofes s i ng a “f i r m convi ct i on” thatt he bur den of p ro v in g lik e lyc o n f

u sio n re m a in s o n p lain tiff s, th e m a

jo rity for m ul at es an af

firm at i ve def

ens e thats hi ft s t o defe ndantt he b u rd e n o f

n e g a tin g c o n f

u sio n . In so d o in g , the m a jo rityf lo u ts bi ndi ng cas el aw hol di ng t hat pr oper nom i nat i ve use i s us e that i s no t li kel yt o confus e, and thata pl ai nt i ff a l one bea r s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng l i kel yconfus i on. M or ever , t o t he ext ent t he m a jori t yplaces anybu rden on plai nti ffs atal l , i ti s so w at er ed- dow n t hatpl ai nt i ffs m i ghtpr ove l i kel yconfus i o n on on e L app f

a c tor al on e. T he m aj ori t y ’s bifur cat ed tes ti s al so51 j ud i ci al l yu n m a n ageab l e beca use i trequi res cou rt s t o ad dress i dent i cal fac t or s on bot h s i des of the equa t i on. A c c o rdi ng l y , I di ssent

. I fi rs trevi ew no m i nati ve u se c a s e s a n d c o n c l u d e th a tp r e c e d e n t , b i n d i n g a n d o t h e r wi s e , s h o ws th a t th e q u e stio n o f

n o m in a tiv e u se is a q u e stio n o f lik e ly confus i on and notan af

fi r m at i ve defens e. Second, I addr es s t he m aj or i t y ’ s bi fur cat ed ana l y s i s , and conc l ude t hati truns afoul of t he La n h am A ctand bi ndi ng pr ece dentbeca us e i tpl ace s on defe nd ant the b urden o f neg at i ng l ik e l ycon fusi on . I al so c o n c lu d e th a t th e tes t is ju d icia llyu n m a n a g e a b le b e c a u se it r equi r es cour t s t o exami ne i d ent i cal l i kel i hood of conf us i on f a c to rs o n b o th sid e s o f th e a n a ly sis . F in a lly , I p ro p o se th a t in nom i nat i ve use cas es , cour t s appl ya modi fi ed l i kel i hood of c o n f u sio n in q u iry b a se d o n L a p p f a c to rs tw o th ro u g h ten , w ith t he bur den r es t i ng w her e i t m us t , on pl ai nt i ffs

. B eca us e pr oper nom i nat i ve us e i s us e thati s notl i kel yt o confus e, i ti s t he m a jo r it y’s “ n o m in a tiv e f

a ir u se ” tes t th a t is u n f a ir, b e c a u se it p lac e s th e b u rd e n w h e re it sh o u ld n e v e r b e , o n th e d e f e n d a n t.
I.
D es pi t e the maj or i t y ’ s des i r e t o “cl ar i fyt he pr oper anal y s i s , ” M aj

. O p. at15, i t s appr oach s i gni fi cant l yi ncr eas es t he uncert ai nt yand – t o us e a t erm appr opr i at e t o t he pr es entcont ext

– conf us i on in th is im p o rta n t ar e a o f th e law . In lig h t o f th is u n c e r t a i n t y , a n d i n l i g h to f t h e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n KP Pe r mane ntM a ke

- U p, I nc . v. Las t i ng I mpr e s s i on I , I nc . , 12 5 S. C t. 54 2 (2 0 0 4 ), th a t a d e f e n d a n t b e a r s n o b u rd e n to n e g a te c o n f u sio n , it is vita l to e x a m in e th e n a tu re o f n o m in a tiv e u se to det erm i ne w hether it is a n aff i r m at i ve def

ens e, ori ns t ead a n e sta b lish e d w a yto tes t f o r l ik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u sio n . B e c a u se it52 i s t he l at t er, the b ur den l i es w i t h pl ai nt i ffs and a bi fur cat ed an aly sis i s im p rop er. T h e m a jo rity , sta tin g th a t th e N in th C irc u it i s th e o n ly C o u rt o f A p p e a ls to c ra f

t a te st f

o r n o m in a tiv e u s e , m ild ly r e wo r d s t h a tt e s ta n d r e c a s t s i ta s a n a f f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e . As d isc u ss e d in th e su b se c tio n s b e lo w , this a p p r o a c h is u n p re c e d e n ted , u n w ise , an d im p e rm iss ib le. F irst, itis unpr ece dent ed. T he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s deci s i ons m ake i tcl eart hat t he t es ti s not hi ng m or e than a li kel i hood of conf us i on s ubsti tut e, m aki ng i tan i nappr opr i at e founda t i on foran aff i r m at i ve def

ens e. Second, it i s unw i s e. O t herC our t s of A p p e a ls h a v e e x e rc ise d g re a t sk e p ticism to w a rd s th e N in th C irc u it’s te st a n d n o n e h a v e a d o p ted it o u trig h t, ca lli n g in to se rio u s q u e stio n th e w isd o m o f u s in g it as a a n a lytic m o d e l. Fi n a l l y , t h e ma

j o r i t y ’ s a p p r o a c h i s i mpe r mi s s i b l e . Bi n d i ng pr ece dentfr om t he Supr eme C our tand thi s C our tr equi r es t hat nom i nat i ve us e be addr es s ed t hr ough a l i kel i hood of conf us i on analy si s and thatt he b urden rem ai n o n p l ai nti ffs.
A.
T h e e rron e o u s m ajor p rem ise u n d erly ing the m ajority ’s concl us i on i s t he as s um pt i on t hatno m ina t i ve us e mustbe anal y zed thr ough an af fi r m at ive def

ens e. T hi s as s um pt i on begi ns w i t h t he m aj or i t y ’ s m i s us e of t he t es t enunci at ed byt he N i nt h C i r cui t i n N ew K i ds on t he B l ock v. N ew s A m eri ca Publ i s hi ng, I nc. , 971 F. 2d 302 ( 9t h C i r . 1992)

. A s s t at ed byt he m aj or i t y : “W e must deci de t he ext entt o w hi ch w e s houl d adopt [ th e N in th C ir c u i t ’ s ] t e s t a s o u r o w n , m in d fu l th a t w e w ill em ploy i tas an a

ffi rm a t i ve defense t o be pr oven bydefe ndant aft erl i kel i hood of conf us i on has been de m ons t r at ed byt heL ik e o u r C o u rt a n d o th e r C o u rts o f A p p e a ls, th e N in th 11 C i r cui tus es a mul t i

- fac t ort es tforl i kel i hood of conf us ion t hat lo o k s to , in tera lia , t he s i m i l ar i tyof the mar ks , s t r ength of the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark, and otherfac t or s . See A M F I nc. v. Sl eekc r aft B o ats, 5 9 9 F

. 2 d 3 4 1 (9th C ir

. 1 9 7 9 ). 53 pl ai nt i ff. ” M aj. O p . at40 ( emphasi s added)

. H ow ever , t he N in th C irc u it h a s m a d e it c ry sta l-c lea r th a t its te st is a su b stitu te fori t s norm al m ul t i

- fac t orl i kel i hood of c o n fu si on t es t , t o be u se d in c a se s inv o lv in g p u rp o rte d n o m in a tiv e u se . T h e N in th 11 C i r cui thas al s o m ade i tcl eart hatt hi s t es t p lace s on t he defe ndant the bur den of pr ovi ng no l i kel i hood of conf us i on. B eca us e K P Per m anentm akes i tcl eart hat i t i s i m pr opert o pl ace a b u rd e n o f p ro v in g n o n c o n f u sio n o n th e d e f

e n d a n t, th e m a

jo rity gr i evous l yerr s byt r eat i ng t he N i nt h C i r cui tt es tas an aff i r m at i ve def

ens e. A s not ed by N ew K i ds , cl as s i c s t atut or y fai rus e appl i es “w her e the def

endanthas us ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark t o d es cr i be t he d efen dan t ’s ow n p ro d u c t.” 9 7 1 F .2 d a t 3 0 8 (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). T h u s, if B E S T P R IC E w ere u sed a s a m ark , thir d pa r t i e s mi g h ts t i l l f

a i r l yu s e “ b e s tp r i c e ” i n i t s o r i g i nal d esc ri p ti v e se n se to ref

er t o their o wn goods ors ervi ces , s uch as

“ W e o f f e r th e b e st p ric e o n b re a k f a st c e re a l.” In c o n tra st, n o m in a tiv e u se a rise s “ w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t u se s a tra d e m a rk to descri be the plai nti ff’s produ ct , rather than i t s ow n. ” N ew K i ds, 9 7 1 F .2 d a t 3 0 8 . In N e w K id s , o n e o f t h e d e f e n d a n ts , a new s paper , had pr i nt ed a pol l s ay i ng “N ew K i ds on t he B l ock are p o p ’s h o tt est g rou p . W h ich o f the fiv e is y o u r f av e? O r are theya turn o ff

? ” Id

. at 30 4

. A n o th e r d e fe n d an t new sp ap er, under a p i c tu r e o f o n e o f t h e New Ki d s , a s k e d , “ W h i c h of t he54 N ew K i ds on the B l ock w oul d y ou m os tl i ke t o m ove next door ?” I d. T he C our thel d:

a c o m m e rc ial u se r is e n tit led to a n o m in a tiv e f a ir us e def ens e pr ovi ded he meet s the fol l ow i ng t hr ee re q u ire m e n ts: F irst, th e p ro d u c t o r se rv ice in q u e stio n m u st be o n e n o t re a d ily id e n tifia b le w i t ho ut use of t he tr adem ark; second , onlyso m u c h o f th e m a rk o r m a rk s m a yb e u se d a s is r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o i dent i fyt he pr oductor s er vi ce; and thi r d, t he us erm us tdo not hi ng t hat w ou l d, in con

j un ct i on w i t h the m ark, sugg est sp o n so rship o r en d o rs e m en t bythe trad em ark h o lder.
Id. at30 8 (note om i t t ed). T he fi rs t requi rem ent w as m etbecau se “[i ] t i s n o mor e r e a s o n a b l y p o s s i b l e , h o wev e r , t o r e f e r t o t he N ew K i d s as an en t i t yt han i ti s t o refer t o the C hicago B ull s, V ol ks w agens o r the Bost on M ar athon w i t houtus i ng t he t radem ark. ” Id. T he seco nd requi rem e n t w as m etbecau se defe ndant s “d o n otus e the N ew K i ds ’ di s t i nct i ve l ogo or a n y th in g e lse th a t isn ’t n e e d e d to m a k e th e a n n o u n c e m e n ts in tellig ib le to re a d e rs.” Id . T h e th ird e lem e n t w a s m e t as w e ll beca us e “nothi ng i n t he announc ement s s ugges t s j oi nt sp o n so rship o r en d o rsem en t b y th e N ew K ids.” Id. In par t i cul ar , one of t he ads as ked “w hether t he N ew K i ds m i ghtbe

‘ a tur n off. ’ ” I d. at309.
I n s ubseq u en tcas es , t he N i nt h C i r cui thas emphasi zed t hat t he t es ti s a su b stitu te forthe nor m al m ul t i

- fac t orl i kel i hood o f c o n f u s io n a n a lysis – “ n o m in a tiv e f a ir u s e a n a l y s is

. . . r eplaces t he l i kel i hood of cus t om erconfus i on anal y s i s . ” C ai r ns55 v. Fr ankl i n M i ntC o. , 2 9 2 F

. 3d 1139, 1151 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; s ee al s o K P Per m anent M ake- U p, I nc. v. L as t i ng I m pr es s i on I , I nc. , 328 F. 3d 1061, 1072 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) (“ W h e n a n a ly z in g n o m in a tiv e f a ir u se , itis n o t n e c e ss a ryto addr es s l i kel i hood of conf us i on beca us e the n om i na t i ve f airuse a n a lys is r e

p la c e s th e like lih o o d o f co n fu sio n a n a lys is .” (em p h asis ad d ed )), rev ’d o n o ther g d s. , 1 2 5 S

. C t. 5 4 2 (20 0 4 ).
F u eli n g the m aj or i ty ’ s m ist ak en u se o f th e N inth C ir cu it ’s tes t as a n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se is th e f

a c t th a t th e N in th C irc u it confus i ngl yr efe r s t o i t s ow n t es tatt i m es as a defens e, s uch as in N e w K id s w h e re th e C o u rt c a lled th e tes t “a n o m in a tiv e f a ir u se d e f e n se.” 971 F

. 2d at30 8. B ut i ti s cl ear that the N i n th C i r cui t ’s test i s notan af fi r m at i ve def

ens e i n t he s ens e the m aj or i t yenvi s i ons , as a def ense to b e as s er t ed once a pl ai nt i ff has es t abl i s hed a l i kel i hood of conf us i on . T h is i s beca us e the N i n t h C i r cui t ’ s s o- cal l ed “de fens e” i s i t s el f a l i kel i hood of co n fu sio n test

. In B roth er R ec o rds, Inc

. v . Jard ine, t h e C o u rt a c k n o w le d g e d c h a rg e s o f “ ‘c o n f u sio n in th e c a se law ’” a s to w hether“nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” w as r eal l ya di sti n ct d efe ns e or i nst ead “‘m erel y o ne type o f use w hich i s not l i kelyt o cau se co n f usi on . ’” 318 F

. 3d 90 0, 90 8-09 n

. 5 (9t h C i r. ) ( qu oti ng 2 J. T h o m a s M c C a rth y , M c C a rth y o n T ra d e m a rk s an d U n f a ir C om pet i t i on § 11: 47 ( 4t h ed. 2001) ) , cert

. deni ed, 540 U

. S. 824 ( 2003)

. I n r es pons e, t he C our tadmi t t ed thati t s t es tr epl ace d t he nor m al m ul t i

- fac t orl i kel i hood- of- confus i on anal y s i s , w i t h one s i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence : i t“s hift s t o t he def endantt he bur den of pr ovi ng no l i kel i hood of conf us i on. ” I d. at909 n. 5.
T hus , i ti s cl eart hat t he N i nt h C i r cui tt r eat s i t s “def ens e” as a s ubs t i tut e fort es t i ng l i kel i hood of conf us i on. I ti s al s o cl ear th a t itp lac e s th e b u rd e n o f n e g a tin g c o n f u sio n o n th e d e f

e n d a n t,56 wh i c h u n d e rKP P e r ma n e n t , i s n o w i mp e r mi s s i b l e . I n KP Per m anent , t he C our thel d t hata def endantatno t i m e pos s es s es the b u rde n o f n eg ati n g co n fu sion , n o tin g , in tera lia , “the i ncoher ence of pl aci ng a bur den t o s how nonco n fusi on on a d e f e n d a n t,” 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 5 4 9 , a n d th a t “it ta k e s a lo n g stre tch to c laim th a t a d e f

e n se o f f a ir u se e n tails a n y b u rd e n to n e g a te confus i on. ” I d. at548. A s t he Supr eme C our thas m ade i tcl ear t hat t he burde n of show i ng l i kel yconfus i on bel ongs t o pl ai nt i ffs al one, i t i s i m pr oper t o t w i s t t he nom i nat i ve us e i nqui r yi nt o an aff i r m at i ve def

ens e. B.
T he maj or i t y s ugges t s t hat r efus i ng t o adopti t s appr oach w oul d be “l ar gel y out of sync w i t h t he exi s t i ng j ur i s prudence on fa irus e. ” M aj

. O p. at25. B utcons i der i ng t he maj or it y ’s c o n c e ss io n s th a t th e N in th C irc u it “is th e o n ly C o u rt o f A p p e a ls to h a v e s p e c if

ic a lly c ra f

te d its o w n te s t f

o r n o m in a tiv e f

a iru s e ,” i d. at40 , t hat “[f] ew other c ou rt s have sp ok en o n the preci se i s s ue, ” i d. at1 4 , and thatt her e i s a “pa uci t yof the ca s e l aw on t hi s s ubj ect fr om every[other ] cour t ” on nomi nat i ve us e, i d. at 15- 16, t he maj or i t ycannotp o intt o a s etof exi s t i ng j u r i s p ru d e n c e f

r o m w h i c h t o s t r a y. If a n y th in g , to th e e x ten t th e re is d isc e rn a b le j ur i s prudence r egar di ng t he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s appr oach, t he tr end is h e a v ilya g a in st a d o p tin g its tes t. T h e S ix th C irc u it, f a c e d w ith th e o p tio n o f

a d o p tin g th e N in th C irc u it’s te st, h e ld “ [ t]h is ci rcui thas nev e r fo l l ow ed the no m i nati ve fa i r use anal y si s, al w ay s havi ng appl i ed [ourow n m ul t i

- fac t orl i k el i hood of co n fu sion ] t est. W e a re n o t i n cli n ed to ad o p t the N inth C ir cu it ’s analy si s here. ” P A C C A R Inc. v. T el eS can T echn o lo g ies,E ven the maj or it y adm i t s “i ts eems thatonl yt he 12 Second, Fi fth, and Si x th Ci r c u i t s h a v e r efe r ence d t he nomi nat i ve fai rus e def

ens e byname and even on t hes e occas i ons have done s o onl yt o r efe r t o w hatdi s t r i ctcour t s had done w i t h t he i s s ue or to d e c lin e to a d o p t th e N in th C irc u it’s te st a s a w h o le.” M a j. O p. at14. 57 L .L .C ., 3 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 6 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e F if th C irc u it app lied th e t eston l yi n p art , decli ning t o im po se the fir st el ement of the t es t

. See Pebbl e B eac h C o. v. T our 18 I L t d. , 155 F

. 3d 52 6, 54 6 n

. 13 (5th C i r. 19 98 ) ( refusi ng t o ad op tt he fir st el ement beca us e i tw oul d al w ay s be s at i s fi ed i n di s put es l i ke the c o m p a ra tiv e a d v e rtisin g c a se b e f o re th e C o u rt, an d d e c lin in g to opi ne on w hethert he r equi r ements houl d be i m pos ed out s i de the c o m p a ra tiv e a d v e rtisin g c o n tex t). P e b b le B e a c h e x p re ss ly re c o g n iz e d th e N in t h C i r c u it’ s “ d e f e n s e ” f o r w h a t it w a s , a l i kel i hood of confus i on t es t , s t at i ng t hat “[w ] hi l e a c l ai m t hatt he u se w a s to id e n tifyth e m a rk h o ld e r’s g o o d s o r se rv ice s is a n a l o g o u s to th e s ta tu to ry f a ir -u s e d e f

e n s e , i tis i n act ual i t

y a clai m thatthe u s e is noni nf r i ngi ng and thus cr eat es no l i kel i hood of

conf us i on . ” Id

. at 54 5 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 12
O th e r a u th o rities h a v e n o ted th e d e f icie n c ies o f

th e N in th C i r cui t ’ s appr oach. A D i s t r i ctC our ti n M ary l and has cr i t i ci zed all three ele m e n ts, no ti n g that the f ir st an d thir d p ron g s are not hi ng m or e than “a r es t at ementof tw o bas i c pr i nci pl es of t r ademar k l aw , ” fi r s t , t hat us e of a m ark “i s not pr ohi bi t ed i f the us e i s i nt ended mer el yt o r efe rt o t he hol derof the mar k, ” and s econd, t hats uch ref

ere nce “ i s per m i s s i bl e pr ovi ded i ti s not l ikel yt o caus e conf

us i on. ” N at ’ l Feder at i on of the B l i nd, I nc. v. L oom pani cs E nt erp. , I nc. , 936 F. Supp. 1232, 1241 ( D

. M d. 1996)

. Si m i l ar l y , t he s econd pr ong “appe ar [ed] t o der i ve fr omI r e c o g n iz e th a t th e m a jo rityd o e s n o t ad o p t th e N in th 13 C ir cu ittestv erb ati m . H o w ev er, th e m ajorityn ev e rth eless e rrs i n t r eat i ng i t s t es t as an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e bec aus e thatdefe ns e, even a s m odi fi ed, anal y ze s n o t hi ng m or e than cor e i s s ues of l i kel i hood of conf

us i on, i s s u es thatar e w i t hi n t he pur vi ew of pl ai nt i ffs ’ cas e. 58 a conc ern t hatconfus i on as t o aff i l i at i on m ay resul ti f the d e f e n d a n t’s u se o f

th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk e x c e e d s its le g iti m a te r efe r ent i al pu rpo se. ” I d. T he t es thas been a ddi t i onal l yand pr oper l ycr i t i ci zed a s “cl oud[i ng] t he i s s ue of w ho carri es t he bur den t o pr ove l i kel i hoo d o f confus i on. ” D er ek J

. W es tber g, N o te , N ew K i ds on the Bl ock v

. N ew s A m er i ca Publ is hi ng, I nc. : N ew N om i nat i ve U s e D efe ns e I ncr eas es t he Li kel i hood of C o n fu sion S u rrou n d ing the F air U se D ef en se to T rad em ark I nfr i ngement , 24 G ol den G at e U

. L

. R ev. 685, 709 ( 1994)

. T he author notes t hat the thi rd el em ent requi res “t hat the u serm ust do no t hin g th a tw ou l d, i n co njunct i on w i t h the m ark, sugg est sp o n so rsh ip o r e n d o rse m e n t o f th e tra d e m a rk h o ld e r,” b u t w ry ly n o tes t h at t h is inq u iry “m u st b e sati sfied as p art of the p lai n ti ff ’s p ri m a fa cie ca se o f inf

ri n g em en t. ” Id. a t 7 0 5

. I ag ree , an d m o re im p o rta n tly , so d o e s th e S u p re m e C o u rt. 13
C.
T he i r ony of t he m aj or i ty ’ s w el l

- i nt ended buterr oneous “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” de fen se i s t hatt he maj or i t yfel tt he nee d t o cr afta def

ens e i n t he fi r s tpl ace . B i ndi ng cas el aw fr om t he S up rem e C ou rtand t his C ou rthav e analy zed n om i nati ve u se cas es w i t hout r es or t i ng t o a s epar at e t es tand w i t houtpl aci ng t he bur den of ne gat i ng confus i on on defe ndant s . I do nots ee how t he m aj ori t y ’s app roach can be recon ci l ed w i t h these cases

.59 In P reston ett es, Inc

. v . C o ty , th e S u p rem e C o u rt addr es s ed a case i nvol vi ng w hatw e w oul d t odayr efe rt o as nom i nat i ve us e. 264 U

. S. 359 ( 1924)

. T he pl ai nt i ff, ow nerof the m ark s C O T Y an d L ’O R IG A N , so ld perf u m e an d p o w d er. T h e d e f e n d a n t b o u g h t g e n u in e C O T Y a n d L ’O R IG A N p ro d u c ts a n d re p a c k a g e d th e m . T h e p lain tiff so u g h t an in

ju n c tio n to pr eventt he def

enda n t f rom anyus e of the pl ai nt i ff’ s m arks on t he r epac kaged goods

. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad perm i t t ed t he defe ndantto sell t he pl ai nt i ff’ s r epac kaged goods , w i t h a d isc laim e r sa y in g th a t d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t co n n e c ted w ith p lai n tif f a n d th a t th e p e rf

u m e a n d p o w d e r w e re re sp e c tiv e ly

“ in d e p e n d e n tly re b o ttle d ” a n d “ in d e p e n d e n tly c o m p o u n d e d ,” w i t h everyw or d i n “l et t er s of the s ame si ze, col or , t yp e, and g e n e ra l d istin c tiv e n e ss .” Id . at 3 6 7 . W riting f o r th e C o u rt, J us t i ce H ol m es hel d t hat“[w ] hen the m ark i s us ed i n a w ayt hat d o es n o t d ec eive the pu b li c w e see n o su ch san cti ty in the w o rd as t o pr eventi t s bei ng us ed t o t el l t he trut h. I ti s nott aboo. ” I d. at368. P rest onet t es i s cl ear l ya nomi nat i ve us e ca s e, and the Supr eme C our tdi d nott r eatt he us e as one t hathad t o be ju stif ied b yth e d e f

e n d a n t.
T h e m a jo rityse e m s to d ism iss P re sto n e ttes o n th e b a sis that itis no t a n ew ca se. S ee M aj. O p . at 27 n . 4

. I am n o t aw are of anyrul e per m i t t i ng us t o di s r egar d Supr eme C our tpr ece dent s i m pl ybeca us e i ti s not as fre sh as t he Sundaypaper . T he m aj or i t yfai l s t o per s uade thatPr es t onet t es i s anyt hi ng ot hert han a p a ra d ig m n o m in a tiv e u se c a se . In d e e d , ev e n th e N in th C irc u it, whe n f o r mul a t i n g i t s n o mi n a t i v e u s e t e s ti n New K i d s , c i t ed, quot ed, an d reli ed on Pr es t onet t es w hen def i ni ng t he natur e of nom i nat i ve us e:60 [W ] e maygener al ize a cl as s of ca s es w her e the us e of the tr ademar k does not at t empt t o capi t al i ze on cons um erconfus i on ort o appr opr i at e the cac hetof one pr oductfora di ffe r entone. Such nom i nat i ve us e o f a m ark

— w h ere the on ly w o rd r eas onabl y avai l abl e t o des cr i be a pa r t i cul art hi ng i s pr es s ed i nt o s ervi ce— l i es out s i de the s t r i ctur es o f tra d e m a rk law : B e c a u se it d o e s n o t im p lica te t he s our ce- i dent i fi cat i on funct i on t hati s t he p u rp o se o f tra d e m a rk , it d o e s n o t c o n stitu te u n f a ir compet i t i on; s uch us e i s fai rb ec ause i tdoes not i m ply s pons or s hi p orendor s ementbyt he t r ademar k hol der

. “W hen the m ark i s us ed i n a w ayt hatdoes notdece i ve t h e p u bl i c w e s ee no s uch sa nct i t yi n t he w or d as t o pr eventi t s bei ng u s e d t o t e l l t h e t ru t h

. ” P r e s t o n e t t e s , I n c . v . C o t y, 264 U

. S. 359, 368, 44 S. C t

. 350, 3 5 1 , 6 8 L

. E d. 7 3 1 (19 2 4 ) (H o lm es, J. ).
9 7 1 F

. 2 d at 30 7 -08 (em p h asis in o ri g inal).
I n anycas e, w e n eed nottur n t o t he N i nt h C i r cui t , nor r el ys ol el yon ol derpr ece dent , t o fi n d m o re r ece ntbi ndi ng no m i nati ve u se cases. T his C ou rtface d a n o m i nati ve u se d is p u te in G .D

. S e a rl e & C o . v . H u d s o n P h a rm a c e u tic a l C o rp ., 715 F. 2d 837 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 8 3 ). In thatcas e, t he def endantus ed th e p lain tif

f ’s M E T A M U C IL m a rk to tru th f u llysta te th a t it s pr oductw as “Equi val entt o M E T A M U C I L

. ” Id. at838. T he D i s t r i ctC our tenj oi ned the def endantfr om m aki ng cons pi cuous us e of t he m ar k butot herw i s e perm i t t ed trut hful us e of the mar k. O n appea l , w e af

fi r m ed t hat defe ndant coul d trut hful l yus e the m ar k. R el y i ng on Pr es t onet t es , w e conc l uded that“w hetheroneI n addi t i on, w e af fir m ed the l i m i t ed i nj unct i on, w hi ch 14 enj oi ned def

end ant fr om s et t i ng t he mar k aparti n l ar geror di ffe r ent l ycol or ed type, and r equi r ed i tt o us e “® ” and us e the d is c la im e r “ a p ro d u c t o f G .D

. S e a rl e , n o t a H u d s o n p ro d u c t.” I d. at839, 843. 61 i s ent i t l ed t o r efe rt o a compet i t or ’ s t r ademar k depends noton w h e re th e re f

e re n c e a p p e a rs, b u t o n w h e th e r th e re f e re n c e is t rut hful

. ” Id. at843 ( di s cus s i ng and quot i ng Pr es t onet t es , 264 U

. S

. at36 8). W e furt her hel d that such use w as perm i ssi ble “s o lon g as itd o es n o t con tai n m is re p rese n tat ion s o r cr eat e a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood that pur chas ers w i l lbe conf us ed as t o t he s our ce, i dent i t y , or s pons or s hi p of t he advert i s er ’ s pr oduct

. ” I d. at 84 1 (qu o tes o m itted, em p h asis ad d ed ). 14

T hr ee thi ngs ar e obvi ous i n Sear l e. Fi rst , w e had no doubtt hatPr es t onet t es w as t he contr ol l i ng cas e for t he di s put ed us e, a us e thatm odern par l an ce d eem s “nomi nat i ve us e. ” See id. at 8 4 3 & n . 1 3 (qu o ti n g P reston ett es, 2 6 4 U

. S

. a t 3 6 8 ). Second, w e tr eat ed the ques t i on befor e us s ol el yas w hethert he us e w as l i kel y t o confus e. “‘ [C ] ol l at er al and t rut hful r efe r ence s t o t he t rad em ark of anotherar e perm i s s i bl e as l ong as t he “unauthor i zed” r efe r ence does notcaus e conf us i on as t o t he s our ce of

t he pr oductadvert i s ed

. ’ ” I d. at841 n. 9 ( quot i ng D e law a re a n d H u d so n C a n a l C o . v . C lar k , 8 0 U .S . (1 3 W a ll) 311, 327 ( 1872) ) ( emphasi s added)

. T hi r d, not abl ym i s s i ng fr om Sear l e w as anys ugges t i on t hatt he def endantbor e any bur den of s at i s fy i ng an af fi r m at i ve defen se. Ins t ead, t he ques t i on w as w hethert he conduc tw oul d “ c re a te a re a so n a b le l i kel i hood thatpu rchaser s w i l lbe conf us ed as t o t he s our ce,N o tab ly , in P e b b le B e a c h , w h e re th e F if th C irc u it 15 d ec li n ed to ad o p t th e N inth C ir cu it ’s t est v erb ati m , the C o u rt c ited S e a rle a s s u p p o rt f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t “[ t] h is r ig h t to u se a m ark to ide n ti fythe m ark h o lder’s p rod u cts-- a nom i nat i ve use - - how ever , i s l i m i t ed i n t h at th e us e ca nnotbe one that cr eat es a l i kel i hood of co n fus i on as t o s our ce, s pons or s hi p, af fil iat ion , o r ap p rov al. ” 1 5 5 F

. 3 d at 54 6 (cit in g , in tera lia , S e a r l e , 7 1 5 F

. 2 d a t8 4 2 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. U n l i k e t h e m a j o r i t y, t he Fi fth C i r cui tcl ear l yunder s t ood Sear l e t o be a nomi nat i ve us e ca s e and that the i s s ue w as w hethert he us e cr eat ed a l i kel i hood of conf

us i on. T he maj or i t ys t r angel ycompl ai ns t hatnei t her 16 P rest onet t es norSear l e cont ai n any“r efe r ence t o ‘ fai rus e, ’ l et al on e no m i nati ve fa i r use. ’” M aj

. O p. at27 -28 n. 4. O f cou rs e th e yd o n ’t, b e c a u se b o th c a se s tre a t th e a n a ly sis a s o n e o f lik e ly confu sion , notas an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e. A nd t o s t at e the o bv i ou s, neither case w as deci ded befo re the N i nth C i rcuit coi ned the phr as e “nomi nat i ve us e. ” The m aj or i t y ’ s appr oach has t he i m perm i s s i bl e ef fec t of att empt i ng t o overrul e Sear l e, w hi ch ca n onl ybe done byt he en banc C o u rt. 62 i dent i t y , or s pons or s hi p of the adve r t i s er ’ s pr oduct

. ” I d. at841 (em p h asis ad d ed , interna l qu o tes o m itted). 15

L ik e P res t on et t es, S earl e i s a paradi gm no m i nati ve u se ca se. T h e m ere fa ct t h at t h ese d ec isi o n s d id n o t u s e th e term “nomi nat i ve use” w hen t heyw er e dec i ded does notm ake them anyl ess bi nd i ng . B oth cases m ake i tcl ear that nom i nati ve u se i s n o t h i n g mor e t h a n a l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n f u s i o n i n q u i r y , and nei t herpl ace s upon a def endantt he bur den of ne gat i ng confus i on orof put t i ng for t h an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e. 1663 II.
T hi s s ect i on exami nes the i nnerw or ki ngs of the m aj or i t y ’ s bi fur cat ed test

. Subse ct i on I I

. A s how s t hatt he m a jo rity ’s a p p ro a c h p e rm its p lain tiff s to e sta b lish lik e ly c o n f u sio n o n a s lit tle a s o n L a p p f a c to r, an d im p ro p e rlysh if ts to d e f e n d a n t th e b u rd e n o f

n e g a tin g c o n f

u s io n . S u b s e c tio n II .B sh o w s th a t th e m a

jo r ity ’s a p p ro a c h is ju d icia llyu n m a n a g e a b le beca us e i tr equi r es cour t s t o cons i deri dent i cal li k eli hood of c o n f u s io n f a c to rs o n b o th s id e s o f

th e a n a lysis . S u b s e c tio n II .C s how s t hatt he maj or i t y ’ s appr oach s t ems fr om a mi s t aken confl at i on of the s t atut or ydefe ns e of de s cr i pt i ve fai rus e, w hi ch ask s w h ethe r a d e fe n d an t has u sed a m ark in it s p ri m ary des cr i p t i ve s ens e, w i t h nom i nat i ve us e, w hi ch s i m pl yas ks i f a defe ndanthas cr eat ed a l i kel i hood of conf us i on. A.
T he maj or i t y ’ s appr oach w hi t t l es dow n t hi s C our t ’ s t enf a c to r L a p p tes t b e y o n d re c o g n iti o n , p e rm itt in g p lain tif f s to s how l i kel yconfus i on on as l i t t l e as one fac t or . T he ef fec tof th is is to s h if

t to d e f e n d a n t th e b u rd e n o f

n e g a tin g c o n f

u s io n . I w i l l st art by ou t l i ning t he m aj ori t y ’s propo sed order of an al y si s. A lt h o ugh t he maj or i t yconce des t hatei ghtof the t en Lapp f a c to rs c a n b e re lev a n t in n o m in a tiv e u se c a se s, it lim its extended dis cussi on t o these four fact ors: 1

. the p ri ce o f th e g o o d s an d o ther f ac tors i ndi cat i ve of the ca r e and at t ent i on expec t ed of c ons um er s w hen m ak ing a pur chas e;B ecause n om i nati v e use def end ants use a p lai n ti ff ’s 17 m ar k r athert han adopti t , t he more acc ur at e phr as i ng w oul d be “the i nt entof the def

endanti n us i ng t he m ark. ” I have f ol l ow ed t hi s appr oach i n Sect i on I I I , i nfr a. T o be cl ear , t he panel i s unani m ous i n hol di ng t hati n an 18 app rop ri ate c as e, al l butt he fi r s tt w o L app fa ct or s m aybe r el evantt o t he nomi nat i ve us e anal y s i s . See M aj

. O p. at33- 35. M or eover , al t hough t he m ajori t yfocus es on onl yfourof the fa ctors , id

. at 34 , 4 8 , itat no p o int sug g ests that tho se f ac tors con st i tute the sole s etof f act ors f or nom i nati ve u se anal y si s; i ns t ead, it n o te s t hatt he ana l y s i s w i l l “i ncl ude” thos e four fac t or s . See M aj

. O p. at34. T hough the m ajor i t yexpr es s es d o u b t re g a rd in g th e w e ig h t o f th e las t f o u r L a p p f

a c to rs to th is par t i cul ardi s put e, id. a t33, atno poi ntdoes i thol d t hatt he D i stri ct C ou rt i s prohi bit ed from con si deri ng t hem

. A s i tst at es: “W e fi nd tha tal l of the otherL app fa ct or s , w hi l e per haps not appr opr i at e for anal y s i s i n t hi s par t i cul ar cas e, coul d be ana l y zed i n futur e nomi nat i ve us e ca s es , dependi ng on t he fa ctual s i tuat i on. ” Id. at 33 ( emphasi s added)

. A ppar ent l yconcl udi ng th a t th e p a rties a re a c tu a l o r c lo se c o m p e tit o rs, th e m a jo rity a p pears t o s ug gest t hat t he l ast fou r fact ors w i l l be o f lit tle re lev a n c e in th is c a s e . P e rh a p s, b u t as th e m a jo rityim p licitly 64 2. t he l ength of t i m e the def endanthas us ed t he mar k w i t houtev idence of ac tual confus i on; 3. t he i nt ent of t he defe ndanti n adopt i ng t he m ar k; and

17
4. t he evi dence of ac tual confus i on. M aj

. O p. at34. 18r ecogni zes , t he det erm i nat i on of t he degr ee of di s s i m i l ar i t yand i t s w ei gh ti s for the D i stri ctC ou rtt o d et erm i ne i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . Sect i on I I I , i nfr a, o u tl ines how t he ei ghtr el evantL app fac t or s , i ncl udi ng t he fi nal four , s h o u ld be ana l y zed i n a n o m inative u se c ase , in c lu d ing this case

. If the D istri ct C o u rt fi n d s thatt he part i es ’ s ervi ces , cus t om er s , advert i s i ng, and m ar ket s ar e hi ghl ys i m i l arori dent i cal – i

. e. , t he more t he part i es are com peti t ors

– su c h fi nd i ng s have n o b eari ng un der the las t fourL app fa ct or s i n es t ab li s hi ng a l i kel i hood of conf us i on. C om pet i t or s oft en make no m inat i ve us e forpurpos es of “com pari son, cri t i ci sm , [or a] poi nt of r eference. ” N ew K i ds, 971 F. 2d at306; s ee a l s o Sear l e, 715 F

. 2d at841 ( compet i t or sell ing laxa ti v es d esc ri b ed as “E q u ivalen t to M E T A M U C IL ”). I n nom i nat i ve us e ca s es, foc us i ng on t he part i es ’ s t atus as compet i t or s w oul d l ead t o fal s e fi ndi ngs t hatal l nom i nat i ve us es ar e conf us i ng; acc or di ngl y , t he part i es ’ p o ssi bl e s t atus as compet i t or s has l i t t l e t o no bear i ng on es t abl is hi ng a l i kel i hood of conf us i on, and otherfac t or s m us t be addr es s ed t o anal y ze l i kel i hood of conf

us i on. B ut whe n t h e p a r t i e s a r e n o tc o mpe t i t o r s , t h e l a s tf our L app fa ct or s m aybecome r el evanti n cutt i ngag ainst a li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion in the n o m inative u se co n text. T h e m o re t he par t i es ’ s er vi ces , cus t om er s , advert i s i ng, orm arket s di ver ge, th e m o re th e yre d u c e th e lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u s io n . T h is is b e c a u se d if

f e r e n tl y ta rg e ted c o n su m e rs m a yse e th e m a rk s in di ffe r entcont ext s , t hr ough di ffe r ent advert i s i ng, and i n r el at i on t o di ffe r entgoods ors ervi ces. T hes e di ffe r ence s m aycouns el agai ns ta l i kel i hood of conf us i on. 65 I f l i kel yconfus i on i s s how n bypl ai nt i ffs – w hich as di s cus s ed bel o w , m i ghtbe s how n on one Lapp fac t oral one – th e n th e m a

jo rityw o u ld re q u ire d e f e n d a n t to sa tisf

yits “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” def ens e. A s m i l dl yr ew or ded fr om t he66 N in th C irc u it ’ s te st, th e m a jo rityw o u ld re q u ire d e f e n d a n t to s h o w: 1

. Is th e u se o f p lain tiff ’s m a rk n e c e ss a ryto des cr i be ( 1) pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oductors ervi ce and ( 2) defe ndant ’ s pr oductors ervi ce?
2

. Is o n lyso m u ch o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s m ark u sed as is ne ce ssaryto d esc ri b e p lai n ti ff ’s produ ct s or s ervi ces?
3. D oes t he def

endant ’ s conductorl anguage re f lec t th e tru e a n d a c c u ra te r e latio n sh ip b e tw een p l a in tiff

a n d d e f e n d a n t’s p ro d u c ts or services ?
M aj

. O p. at41.
I w ill f irst c o n sid e r th e m a

jo rity ’s b a re -b o n e s L a p p tes t. R egar di ng t he fi r s tfac t or– t he pr i ce of t he goods and other fac t or s ind icati ve of the ca r e and a t t ent i on expec t ed of cons um ers w h en maki ng a pur chas e – the D i s t r i ctC our thad l i t t l e t o s ay , not i ng t hatt he i s s ue w as “a l i t t l e di ff icult” and concl udi ng t hatr eal es t at e pur chase s ar e the mosti m por t ant pur cha s es att he t i m e and pe r haps i n peopl e’ s l i ves . A l t hough the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o p inion is n o t clea r, it ap p ea rs that the C o u rt ei t herfound thatt he fa ct orw as neutr al orpoi nt ed s om ew hat to w a rd s d e f

e n d a n t.
T he s econd a nd four t h fac t or s – l ooki ng t o t he abs ence or presence of actual con fusi on – do n ot as si stplai nti ffs i n thi s case beca us e theys t i pul at ed that t hey w oul d not r el yon evi dence ofA l t hough pr oof of actual confus i on i s notr equi r ed, t he 19 m or e s uch evi dence t her e i s , t he gr eat ert h e l i kel i hood of c o n f u s io n . V e rs a P ro d u c ts C o ., In c . v . B if o ld C o . (M f

g .) L td ., 50 F.3d 1 89, 205 ( 3d C i r . 1995)

. C onver s el y , a l ack of actual confus i on evi dence does not r ai s e an i nfer ence of nonconf us i on “w hen the part i cular ci r cumst ance s [do not ] i ndi cat e s uch e v id e n c e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a v a ilab le.” Id . (alte ra tio n in o rig in a l, quot e mar ks del et ed)

. B ut “[i ] f a de fenda nt ’ s pr oducthas been s ol d for an appr eci abl e per i od of t i m e w i t hout evi dence of ac tual confus i on, one ca n i nfert hatcont i nued mar ket i ng w i l l notl ead t o cons um erconfus i on i n t he futur e. ” I d. 67 actual confusi on fort hes e pr ocee di ngs . T hi s i s uns urpr i s i ng b e c a u se a c tu a l co n f

u sio n e v id e n c e is i n m a n y c a se s u n a v a ilab le and i s notr equi r ed t o fi nd l i kel yconfus i on. 19

T hi s l eave s on ly o n e fact or , i nt ent

. I n t hi s r egar d, t he m aj or i t yhol ds t hat“i f t he courtfi nds t hatt he def endantm ade us e of t he pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark w i t h t he very purp o se o f caus i ng co n su m ers to thin k the p lai n ti ff en d o rses o r spo n so rs plaintiff’s good ors ervi ce, then the l i kel i hood t hatcons um er s w i l l be confus ed as t o endor s ement / aff i l i at i on i s gr eat er . ” M aj

. O p. at 3 5 -3 6 . A c c o rd in g ly , h o ld s th e m a jo rity , “th e k e yin q u iryis w hethert he mar k i s bei ng u sed s o as t o conveya conne ct i on b e tw e e n th e p a rties th a t m a yn o t ex ist.” Id . at 3 6 . I ag re e w ith t he maj or i t yt hatt he i nt enti nqui r yi s i m por t anti n nom i nat i ve us e ca s es . I ndeed, i f the pl aint i ffs i n t hi s appea l ar e t o s how lik e lyc o n f

u sio n a t all, th e yw ill h a v e to p r o v e it th ro u g h th is fac t or . And c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’ s e r i o u s d i s p u t e o v e rt he veraci t yand c o n tex tof the defe nd ant’ s use of the pl ai nti ffs’ m a rk s, I h a v e n o d o u b t th a t o n re m a n d th a t th e in ten t f a c to r w ill be the l ocus of cont ent i on.68 B utt he maj or i t y i s uncl ear as t o w hatfac t or s t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtm igh t l o o k in p rov ing inten t. Itco rrectl yn o tes t h at m ere “[u] s e of the m ark alone i s nots uffi ci ent l ypr obat i ve of s uch inten t. ” M aj. O p . at 37 -38

. T h is m ak es sen se be ca u se th e m ere exi s t ence of nom i nat i ve us e, w i t houtm or e, l acks pr obat i ve val ue as t o w hethert he us e w as m ade w i t h t he i nt entt o confus e. B utt he maj or i t y pr ovi des l i t t l e gui dance on w hatm i ghts erve as aff i r m at i ve pr oof of i nt enti n a nomi nat i ve us e ca s e, not i ng unhel pful l yt hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d cons i derw hether d e f e n d a n t “u se d th e m a rk w ith th e in ten t to c o n f u se th e p u b lic as t o t he re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e d e f e n d a n t an d th e p la in tif

f.” Id . at 3 7 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l) . B u t th a t ad m o n iti o n m e re ly r es t at es t he or i gi nal i nqui r y , i

. e. , w hatevi dence p rov es bad in ten t?
T he maj or i t y ’ s t er s e di s cus s i on of the i nt entfac t orbegs c lar if ica tio n o f

th e k in d o f

p ro o f th a t w o u ld sh o w in ten t to confus e i n a nomi nat i ve us e cas e. For tunat el y , s uch cl ar i fi cat i on is n o t d if

f icu lt to f in d in th e m a

jo rity ’s o p in io n , alth o u g h its l ocat i on i s t r oubl i ng. O ne mi ghtl ook t o t he pu rp os e of a defe nd ant’ s use, w hich w ou l d b e p ro b at i ve o f w hethert he u se w as m ade i n good fai t h ori ns t ead w i t h t he i nt entt o confus e. O ne m i ghtl ook t o t he pr om i nence of t he use; i f defendantus ed t he m ark i n t oo- l ar ge or sty l i zed for m , t hatm ays how an i nt ent to use m ore t han i s necessary , and again show an i ntent to confus e. O ne mi ghtal s o l ook t o t he tru thfulness o f th e u se : if th e u se w a s tru th f

u l, th a t w o u ld su g g e s t a la c k o f in ten t to con fuse; con versel y , m i sl eading o r unt ruthfu l uses of p l ai nti ffs’ m ar ks m aybe pr obat i ve of a n i nt entt o confus e. I f the above char act er i zat i on s ounds fami l i ar , i ts houl d. E ach a nd everyone of the maj or i t y ’ s “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e”I f u rth e r o b jec t to th e f

irst p ro n g o f

th e “ n o m in a tiv e f

a ir 20 u se ” d e f e n se b e c a u se o f

its c o n ju n c tiv e re q u ire m e n t th a t a p lain tiff ’s m a rk b e u se d to d e sc rib e b o th p lain tiff a n d d e f e n d a n t. A lth o u g h “ n o m in a tiv e ” u se re q u ire s th a t th e m a rk b e u se d a t a m i ni m um t o r efe rt o pl ai nt i ff, pr opernom i nat i ve us e mayorm ay notal s o us e a pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark t o r efe rt o t he def endant ’ s goods ors er vi ces . N om i nat i ve us e mayoccur“w her e the def endant us es a t r ademar k t o des cr i be t he pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct , r athert han i t s ow n. ” N ew K i ds , 971 F. 2d at 308. Som et i m es t he us e of the m ar k m ay b e, a s not ed i n N ew K i ds , m er el yfor“compar i s on, c ri ti cism , [o r a] po int o f refe ren ce . ” Id. at 3 0 6

. In an y c a s e , I w o u l d n o t e t h a t e v e n u n d e rt h e m a j o r i t y’ s p h r a s i n g , “ n e c e s s a r y” u n d er the firstp ron g d o es no t m ea n “ind ispe n sab le” – “ the c o u rt need notfi nd t hatt he use of t he m ark i s i ndi s pens abl e i n or der t o fi nd t hi s fac t orful fi l l ed. ” M aj

. O p. at42. A no t her t roubli ng problem t hat m ay ari se fr om t he fir st pr ong’ s conj unct i ve phr as i ng i s that t he maj or i t ym ayhave uni nt ent i onal l y for eor dai ned t he out come of t hes e pr ocee di ngs t hr ough i t s pas s i ng s t at ementthat“[de fenda nt ] i s notat t empt i ng t o use [plai nti ffs’] m arks t o refer t o [def end ant’ s] ow n servi ces, b u t r a th e r i s u s in g th e m a rk s to re f e r t o [ p la in tif

f s ’] s e rv ic e s .” M aj

. O p. at33. T he m aj or i t y appea r s t o s ugges tt hatdefe ndant 69 pr ongs i s no thing m or e than an i nqui r yi nt o the l i kel i hood of c on fusi on , speci fi cal l y , w hether t he use i s w i t h the i ntent to co nfus e due t o a pr es ence orl ack of good- fai t h purpos e, pr om i nence , and trut hful nes s . T he maj or i t y ’ s fi r s t“nomi nat i ve fai rus e” pr ong l ooks t o pu r po se an d asks : “I s t he us e of pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark nece s s aryt o des cr i be ( 1) pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oductor s er vi ce a nd ( 2) defe ndant ’ s pr oductors ervi ce? ” T h i s pr ong as ks w hydefe ndanti s us i ng t he mar k, i

. e. , i t s purpos e i n us i ng i t

. B y t he m aj or i t y ’ s for m ul at i on, i f i t i s nece s s ary fordefe ndant t o u s e t h e ma r k t o d e s c r i b e b o t h t h e p l a i n t i f f s ’ a n d i t s o wn s er vi ces , t hen s uch use m ay b e fai r . B utt he r eas on forany 20d id n o t u se th e m a rk s to re f e r to itse lf. I w ill e m p h a siz e th a t th is det erm i nat i on i s not for t hi s C our t t o m ake and s houl d be made byt he D i s t r i ctC our tupon r emand. T he maj or i t yi s al s o uncl earr egar d ing the phr as i ng of 21 t he s econd pr ong, w hich ask s “[i ] s onl ys o m uch of the plai nti ff’s m ark used as is nece s s ar y to d esc ri b e p lai n ti ff ’s pr oduct s ors er vi ces ?” M aj

. O p. at 41 ( emphasi s added)

. L at er in th e o p in io n , the m a

jo ritysta tes “ th e p ro p e r f o c u s u n d e r th is p ro n g is o n w h e th e r o n lyso m u c h o f p la in tif f ’s m a rk a s is reasona bly necessary t o i dent i fypl ai nt i ff’ s pr od u ct or s ervi ce has b e e n u s e d b y d e f e n d a n t

. ” I d

. a t 4 5 ( e mpha s i s on “r eas onabl y ” adde d)

. T her e maybe w or l ds of di ffe renc e b e tw e e n w h a t is “ n e c e ss a ry ” a n d w h a t is “ re a so n a b ly nece s s ary . ” A l t hough I r ead t he m aj or i t y ’ s s econd s t at ementas 70 “ f a irn e ss ” w o u ld b e b e c a u se th e u se w a s m a d e w ith g o o d in ten t, a paradi gm l i keli ho od of co nfu si on i nq uiry , and on e t hat falls w i t hin the n orm al L app analy si s. T h e se c o nd i nq uirysuffers the sam e i nfirm i t y . Itasks,

“ Is o n ly so m u c h o f th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk u se d a s is n e c e ss a ryto d e sc rib e p lain tiff ’s p ro d u c ts or se rv ice s? ” T h is in q u irylo o k s to t he p r om i nence of the us e, as ki ng i f the def endant“t ook t oo m uch, ” i

. e. , w hether i tus ed bi gger , bol dert ype ora l ogo w hen pl ai n t ype mi ghthave suf fi ced. A nd w hy i s t hi s r el evant ? T he ans w eri s cl ear : t he w i l l ful overus e of pl ai nt i ffs ’ m arks m ay evi dence bad- fai t h i nt entand i s m or e l i kel yt o confus e. I ndeed, Sear l e i t s el f af

fi r m ed an i nj unct i on t hatenj oi ned the def endant fr om s et t i ng t he m ark apart i n l ar ger or di ffe r ent l ycol or ed type, and r equi r ed i tt o us e “® ” a n d a di s cl ai m er . See 715 F. 2d at 8 3 9 , 8 4 3 . A s s u c h , the m a jo rity ’s p ro m in e n c e in q u irya g a in is no t hing m ore t han partof the L app analy si s. 21cl ar i fi cat i on of t he m eani ng of “nece s s ary , ” the maj or i t yi s not c lea r o n th is im p o rta n t p o in t. 71 L ik e t he fir stt w o p rongs, t he m aj ori t y ’s t hir d p rong is agai n not hi ng m or e t han a l i kel i hood of confus i on i nqui r y . It as ks , “D oes t he def

endant ’ s conduct orl anguage r efl ectt he true an d ac cu rate relati o n sh ip b etw ee n p lai n ti ff an d d ef en d an t’ s pr oduct s or s er vi ces ?” Byi t s ow n t erm s , t he thi r d pr ong l ooks t o t he truthfulness o f th e u se o f th e m ark an d the d ef en d an t’ s conducti n des cr i b ing the r el at i ons hi p betw een the part i es and th e ir g o o d s/s e rv ice s. B u t th is tru th f u ln e ss in q u iryis id e n tica l to the s tatu torytest o f i n fring em en t u n d er L an h am A ct § 3 2 (1)(a), w h ich a sk s w h e th e r th e u se is “ lik e lyto c a u se c o n f u sio n , o r to c a u s e m i s ta k e , ort o dece i ve . ” Lanham A ct§ 32( 1) ( a) , 15 U

. S. C

. § 1114( 1) ( a) ( emphasi s added)

. Si m i l ar l y , Sect i on 43( a) ( 1) ( A ) as ks w hethert he us e i s “l i kel y t o caus e conf us i on, o r t o c a u s e m is ta k e , or to d ece i ve as t o the af f i l i at i on, connec t i on, oras s oci at i on of s uch per s on w i th anotherpers on .” Id. § 43 (a)(1)(A ), 1 5 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 2 5 (a)(1)(A ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). B yi t s pl ai n langua ge, t he L anh am A ctl oo ks t o the truthfu l ness of th e p art i es ’ aff

i l i at i on as cruci al par t s of the i nfr i ngement anal y s i s . I n ot herw or ds , t rut hful nes s i s a part of the l i kel i hood of conf us i on an al y s i s , and the maj or i t y ’ s for m ul at i on t o t he contr aryi s i r r econc i l abl e w i t h t he s t atut e. M o r e o v e r, th e m a

jo rity ’s th ird f

a ir u se p ro n g is s ubs t ant i v ely ident i cal t o i t s ow n “i nt ent ” Lapp fac t or . T he m ajority ’s t h ir d fa iru se p ro n g ask s w h ethe r “the d ef en d an t’ s conductorl anguage r e f

l e c t [ s ] t he tru e a n d

a c c u ra te r e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n p lain tiff

a n d d e f e n d a n t’s p ro d u c ts o r se rv ice s.” M a j. O p. at41 ( emphasi s adde d ). T hi s i nqui r yi s i dent i cal t o t he m ajority ’s i n tent testu n d er L ap p , w h ich st ates “ the k eyinq u iryT he i dent i t yof the Lapp anal y s i s and the af fi r m at i ve 22 defe ns e i s fur t herunder s cor ed byt he maj or i t y ’ s addi t i onal des cr i pt i ons of the Lapp “i ntent” i nqui r y : w hether“the defe nd ant m ade u se of t he p l ai nti ff’s m ark w i t h the verypu rpose of ca us i ng cons um er s t o t hi nk t he plai nti f f end orses or s

po nsors pl ai n ti ff’s good ors er vi ce , ” M aj. O p . at 35 (em p h asis ad d ed ), and w hetherdefe nd ant “used t he m ark w i t h the i ntentt o co nfu se t he publ i c as t o t he re la tio n sh ip betw een t he defenda ntand the p lai n ti ff

. ” Id

. at 37 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). J u s tl i k e t h e ma

j o r i t y , t h e Ni n t h Ci r c u i t ’ s f i r s tt wo 23 “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” pr ongs l ooks t o purpos e and pr om i nence . T he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s t hi r d pr ong embra ces t rut hful nes s and more , unabas hedl yr equi r i ng th a t“the us erm us tdo not hi ng t hatw oul d, i n conj unct i on w i t h t he m ark, s ugges t s pons or s hi p or endor s ement by t he t r ademar k hol der

. ” N ew K i ds , 971 F. 2d at 308. T r yas i tm i ghtt o dr es s up t he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s t es t i n new cl ot hes , t he t es tw as and r emai ns an i nqui r yi nt o l i k el i hood of confus i on, and the maj or i t yr epea t s t he N i nth C i r cui t ’ s err orof p lac in g th e b u rd e n o f

n e g a tin g c o n f

u sio n o n to th e d e f

e n d a n t. 72 i s w hether t he m ark i s bei ng us ed s o as t o conve y a connec t i on betw een the par t i es th a t m a yn o t e x ist.” Id . at 3 6 (e m p h a sis added)

. W hethero n e ca ll s us es t he w or ds “conne ct i on” or “rel at i on shi p, ” i ti s obv i ou s that the m aj ori t y ’s t hir d fairuse p ro n g a n d its L a p p in ten t in q u iry a re id e n tica l. A s th e m a jo rity 22 pl ace s i dent i cal l i kel i hood of conf us i on fac t or s on bot h s i des of th e e q u a tio n , the re c a n b e n o d o u b t th a t th e m a jo ritye x p e c ts defe ndantt o pr ove nonconf us i on. In su m , the “ n o m inative f air use” de fe n se is n o thing m o re t h a n a v e n tu r e i n t o L a p p t e r r i t o r y , n a me l y , i n t e n ta s s h o wn t hroug h the defen dan t ’s pu rpose, prom i nen ce, and t ruthfu l ness i n connec t i on w i t h pl ai nt i ffs ’ m arks

. A l t hough i ti s t r oubl i ng 23Iro n ica lly , the m a jo rityc riticiz e s th e D is trict C o u rt in 24 L iq u id G la s s E n te rp ri s e s , In c . v . D r. In g . h .c .F . P o rs c h e A G , 8 F

. S u p p . 2 d 3 9 8 (D

. N .J . 1 9 9 8 ), su g g esti n g that the C o u rt “conf l at ed the [N ew K i ds ] t es tw i t h t he pl ai nt i ff’ s bur d en of pr ovi ng l i kel i hood of con fu sion

. ” M aj

. O p. at15. Y ett he ma j o r i t y ’ s t e s ts t a n d s g u i l t y o f t h e s a me a c c u s a t i o n t h a ti ta i ms atL i qu i d G l ass. 73 th a t th e m a

jo r ityw o u ld p e rm it p lain tiff s to e sta b lish lik e ly co n fu sion b ase d o n o n e L ap p fa ctor a lon e, i t i s ev en m o re d is tu rb in g th a t th e m a

jo rityw o u ld re q u ire th e d e f e n d a n t to di s pel t hatfi ndi ng t hr ough an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e l ooki ng t o t he sam e l i keli ho od of co nfu si on con si derat i on s. 24

B.
No to n l yd o e s t h e ma j o r i t y ’ s t e s tru n a f

o u l o f KP P e rm a n e n t an d th e L a n h a m A c t b y p lac in g u p o n d e f e n d a n t a b u rd e n o f

n e g a tin g c o n f

u sio n , b u t itis a lso ju d icia lly unm anage abl e. O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ct C our t w i l l be r equi r ed t o cons i derthe purpos e, pr om i nence , and trut hfu lne s s of the defe ndan t’ s conductas par tof the pl ai nt i ffs ’ l i kel i hood of c o n f u s i o n c a s e . I twi l l a l s o be r e q u i r e d t o l o o k t o t h e s a me fac t or s w hen ent er t ai ni ng t he def endant ’s a ffi r m at i ve def ens e. T hi s m akes no s ens e. T he maj ori ty p oi nt s t o no m eani ngful di s t i nct i ons betw een the ki nds of “i nt ent ” thatm i ghtbe r el evant to lik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u sio n , an d th o se w h ich m ig h t b e re lev a n t to th e a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e . T h i s i s b e c a u s e th e ya re id e n tic a l. I r es pect ful l ys ubm i tt hatD i s t r i ctC our t s w i l l notbe abl e t o m ake head s or t ai l s of ho w t o co nd uct the an al y si s.T r y i ng t o fi nd s om e use for i t s aff i r m at i ve defens e, t he 25 m ajorityarg u es th at “[ i] t i s the c ir cu m stan ce in w h ich a co u rt d o e s n o t f

in d b a d in te n t b u t d o e s f in d c o n f u sio n th a t a nom i nat i ve fa i rus e def ens e w i l lbe m os tus ef

ul

. ” M aj

. O p. at 3 8 -3 9 n .7 (so m e e m p h a sis a d d e d ). Iro n ica lly , s u c h a u se w o u ld be a lm o stt he o nlyci rcum st ance w here a no m i nati ve fa i r use defe ns e w o u ld e v e n th e o re tica lly b e a v a ila b le

. I f l i kel i hood of con f u s i o n e x i s t s d u e t o b a d i n t e n t , t h e d e f e n s e wi l l be unavai l abl e beca us e t he i nt enti s bad. I f l i kel i hood of conf us i on does n’ tex is t , t hen the def ens e w on’ tneede d. T hi s l eave s t he ci r cumst ance n o ted byt he maj or i t y : i f l i kel i hood of conf us i on i s s om ehow s how n des pi t e a l ack of bad i nt ent , defe ndantcan poi ntt o i t s good i nt entt o pr evai l

. B utcons i der i ng t hata key i nqui r yi n a nomi nat i ve us e cas e i s w hyt he def endanthas us ed t he pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark ( purpos e) and how i thas been us ed (pro m inen ce an d tru thf

u lnes s), itis h ard to im ag ine a ca se w h ere 74 T h e p ra c tica l e f

f e c t o f th e m a

jo rity ’s b if

u rc a ted a n a ly sis i s t hatt he nomi nat i ve fa i ruse d ef en se w i l l al m os tal w ay s be av ail ab le on lyin ca ses w h e re it i s u n n ee d ed

. W h ere a c o u rt fi nds t he us e t o be mad e w it h t he i nt entt o confus e, t hen a fi ndi ng of l i kel i hood of conf us i on w i l l oft en fol l ow . A ccor di ng to th e m a

jori ty , in su ch a c ase , a d ef en d an t cou ld the n asse rt nom i nat i ve fa i rus e. H ow ever , s uch a de fens e w oul d be hol l ow i ndeed, beca us e the ent i r e “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” de fens e as ks w h e th e r t h e u s e w a s m a d e w ith th e in te n t t o c o n f u s e . T h u s , a d e f e n d a n t f o u n d to h a v e c a u se d lik e lyc o n f u sio n d u e to i l l egit i m at e p u rp ose, ov erl yprom i nen tuse, or untruthful ness w i l l be unabl e t o as s er ta s ucce s s ful “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” defe nse. C on versel y , i n cases w here t he all eged no m i nati ve u se is m a d e w ith g o o d -f

a ith p u rp o se , is n o t o v e rly p ro m in e n t, an d is t rut hful , t hen a pl ai nt i ff w i l l l i kel yfai l i n pr ovi ng i t s cas e of l i kel yconfus i on. I n t hatcas e, t he def ens e w i l l be unnee ded. 25n e c e ss a ry , n o n -p ro m in e n t, an d tru th f u l u se w o u ld b e lik e lyto confus e. Such a fi ndi ng undert he fa ct s of thi s cas e w oul d appea r t o r equi r e hi ghl y uns ophi s t i cat ed consumer s and an a bundance o f a c tu a l co n f

u sio n e v id e n c e . B u t th is h yp o th e tica l p o ss ib ili ty

– n o ta b ly , circ u m sta n c e s n o t p re se n t in th is c a se , p o ss ib ly r ender i ng t he m aj or i t y ’ s appr oach a s not hi ng m or e than di ct a – does notw arr antt he ma jori t y ’ s i nvent i on of an a ffi r m at i ve defe ns e thatdupl i cat es l i kel i hood of conf us i on i nt enti nqui r i es and pl ace s upon defe n d ant an af fi r m at i ve bur den of s how i ng good fai t h. I n anycas e, t he maj or i t y ’ s unli k ely scena r i o of lik e lyc o n f

u sio n d e sp ite g o o d f

a ith m a yn o t w a rra n t a c o m p lete b a r o n su c h u se , an d u n d e r a p p ro p ria te c irc u m sta n c e s, m a ym e rit atm os ta co n s t r ai ned r emedyt hatcont i nues t o per m i ts uch tru thf u l use , s u c h as o rde ri n g clarify ing lang u ag e o r a di s cl ai m er , as happene d i n Sear l e. C f. 715 F. 2d at839, 843. 75 T he resul tw i l l cert ain lybe thatt he n om i nati ve fa i r use d e f e n se , as f o rm u late d b y th e m a

jo rity , w ill re m a in u n a v a ilab le i n m anyof the ca s es w her e i ti s neede d due t o a bad- fai t h i nt ent to c o n f u se . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt f ro w n e d h e a v ilyo n th is a b su rd ity in K P P e rm a n e n t w h e re it h e ld , “‘[ I]t d e f ies lo g ic to arg u e that a def

ens e maynotbe as s er t ed i n t he onl ys i tuat i on w her e i teven be comes r el evant

. ’ ” 125 S. C t

. at549 ( quot i ng S h ak esp ea re C o . v . S ilst ar C o rp., 1 1 0 F

. 3 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 3 (4th C ir

. 19 97 ))

. T he C ou rtfurt her noted t hat “ i tw ou l d m ake n o sense t o gi ve the def

endanta def

ens e of s how i ng aff

i r m at i vel yt hatt he pl ai nt i ff c anno ts ucce ed i n pr ovi ng s om e el ement( l i ke confus i on)

. ” I d. Y ett hi s i s exac t l yw hatt he maj or i t yhas done.L anham A ct§ 32( 1) ( a) s t at es that“[a ]nyper s on w ho 26 s hal l , w i t hout t he cons entof the r egi s t r ant

- - ( a) us e i n comm er ce anyr epr oduct i on, count er fei t , copy , or col or abl e i m i t at i on of a r egi s t er ed mar k i n connec t i on w i th the s al e, offe r i ng fors al e, d istrib u tio n , o r a d v e rtisin g o f a n yg o o d s o r se rv ic e s o n o r in connec t i on w i t h w hi ch such use i s l i kel yt o caus e conf us i on, or to c a u se m ista k e , o r to d e c e iv e . . . sh a ll b e liab le in a c iv il a c t i o n b yt h e r e g i s t r a n t

. . . . ” La n h a m Ac t§ 3 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) , 1 5 U. S

. C. § 111 4 (1)(a)

. Si m i l ar l y , Sect i on 43( a) ( 1) ( A ) as ks w hethert he u se is “ lik e lyto c a u se c o n f u sio n , o r to c a u se m ista k e , o r to dece i ve as t o t he affi l i at i on, connec t i on, or as s oci at i on of s uch p e rs o n w ith a n o th e r p e rs o n . ” I d . § 4 3 (a )( 1 )( A ), 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 1 2 5 (a)(1)(A ). C o m p are this l an g u ag e to th e m ajority ’s aff i r m at i ve “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” de fens e – w hi ch as ks w hether “def endant ’ s conductorl anguage r ef l ect[ s ] the tr ue and ac c u ra te r e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n p lain tiff a n d d e f e n d a n t’s p ro d u c ts 76 C.
T he maj or i t y ’ s bi fur cat ed ana l y s i s appea r s t o ar i s e fr om a fa i l ur e t o r ecogni ze thatK P Per m anentaddr es s es s ever al i s s u e s , o n l y t h e f

i r s to f w h i c h i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s c a s e , n a m e l y, t he Supr eme C our t ’ s holding t hata def endantbear s no bur den of nega t i ng confus i on. K P Per m anent ’ s s econd hol di ng con cerns m at t ers pecu l i ar t o the st atutorydescripti ve fa i r use tes t, a te st w ith n o b e a rin g in th e p re se n t co n tex t.
T h e f irst iss u e in K P P e rm a n e n t, a n d th e o n e th a t co n tro ls t he out come of t hi s cas e, r egar ds w hi ch part ybear s t he bur den o f d e m o n stra tin g a lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n . A s th e m a

jo rity r ecogni zes , K P Per m anent cl ear l y hol ds t hat t hi s bur den bel ongs t o a p l ai nti ff alone. N othi ng i n th e L a n ham A ctrequi res a defe ndant t o negat e a l i kel i hood of conf us i on. A s hel d byt he

26o rs e r v i c e s . ” M a j

. Op

. a t 4 1 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. I t ’ s t h e s a me i nqui r y , and it i m pr oper l ypl ace s t he bur den of ne gat i ng c o n f u sio n o n d e f

e n d a n t. 77 Supr eme C our t , t he A ct r equi r es t hatt he bur den r emai n on pla i nt i ff s : i n t ha t c a s e , t he Cour t he l d t he s t a tut e “ pl a c es a b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g lik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u sion (th a t is, inf

rin g e m e n t) on the par t ychar gi ng i nfr i ngementeven w hen r el y i ng on an i ncont es t abl e r egi s t r at i on. ” K P Per m anent , 125 S

. C t

. at548. T hu s , h e l d t h e Cou r t , “ t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g l i k e l i h ood of confus i on r es t s w i t h t he pl ai nt i ff. ” I d. at550.
T h e C o u rt f

u rth e r h e ld th a t itw o u ld b e in c o h e re n t to pl ace upon defe ndantt he bur den of s how i ng nonconfus i on: [A ] l ook at t he t ypi cal cour s e of l i t i gat i on i n an i nfr i ngement act i on poi nt s up t he i ncoher ence of pl ac i n g a b u r d e n t o s h o w n o n c o n f u s i o n on a d e f e n d a n t. If a p lain tiff

su c c e e d s in m a k in g o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se o f

tra d e m a rk in f

rin g e m e n t, i ncl udi ng t he el ementof l i kel i hood of cons um er confus i on, t he d efendantm ayoffe rr ebut t i ng ev iden ce to u n d erc u t th e f o rc e o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s ev i d e n c e o n t h i s ( o r a n y ) e l e me n t , o r r a i s e an a f f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e t o b a rr e l i e f e v e n i f t h e p r i ma f a c ie c a se is s o u n d , o r d o b o th . B u t itw o u ld m ake no se ns e t o gi ve the def endanta def

ens e of s how i ng aff

i r m at i vel yt hatt he pl ai nt i ff c annot s ucce ed i n pr ovi ng s o me el ement ( l i ke c o n f u sio n ); a ll th e d e f

e n d a n t n e e d s to d o is to l eave t he fa ct fi nderunper s uaded t hat t he pl ai nt i ff h a s c a rr ie d i t s o w n b u rd e n o n th a t p o in t. A78 defe ndanthas no need of a court ’ s t rue be li ef w hen agnos t i ci s m w i l l do.
I d. at 5 4 9

. F ort he r eas ons not ed above , I concl ude thatt he m a jo rity ’s b if

u rc a ted a n a ly sis a n d th e p h ra sin g o f its “nomi nat i ve fa i rus e” defe ns e vi ol at e thi s fi r s tand cl earhol di ng of K P P ermanent , bypl aci ng t he bur den of s how i ng n o n c o n f u sio n o n d e f

e n d a n t.
A s eco n d i s s ue i n K P Per m anent , i n contr as t , has no bear i ng t o t hi s cas e. T hati s s ue w as w hatr ol e, i f any , a fi ndi ng of l i kel yconfus i on m aypl ay w h en a de fenda ntas s er t s t he statut ory aff

i rm ati ve defense of des cr i pt i ve fai r use under L anham A ct§ 33( b) ( 4)

. T he s t atut orydefe ns e as ks w hether “the us e of the name, t erm , ordevi ce ch arged t o be an i nfr i ngement i s a us e, ot herw i s e t han as a m ark,

. . . of a t erm or d e v ice w h ich is d e sc rip tiv e o f a n d u se d f

a irlya n d in g o o d f

a ith o n lyto d e sc r ib e th e g o o d s o r se rv ice s o f su c h p a rty , o r th e ir g e o g r a p h i c o r i g i n . ” La n h a m Ac t§ 3 3 ( b ) ( 4 ) , 1 5 U. S

. C. § 11 1 5 ( b ) ( 4 )

. Unl i k e t h e p r e s e n td i s p u t e , whi c h a s k s whe t her defe ndant cre at ed a l i kel i hood of conf us i on byus i ng t he p la in tif f s ’ m a rk s to re f

e r a t le a s t in p a rt to p la in t if f s , a des cr i pt i ve fai r - us e def

ens e w oul d as k w hethera def endantm ay us e a tr ademar k ( e. g. , “B E ST PR I C E ”) i n i t s pr i m arydes cr i pt i ve s ens e ( e. g. , “w e off

er t he best pr i ce on br eakf as tcer eal ”)

. I n t he l at t ercas e, a thr es hol d i nqui r y and keydi s t i ngui s hi ng fac ti s t hat defe ndantw oul d al l ege thati ti s not us i ng t he pl ai nt i ff’ s m arks to ref er t o pl ai nt i ff a tal l , buti s i ns t ead us i ng t he mar k i n a des cr i pt i ve w ayw i t houtr efe r ence t o t he pl ai nt i ff.
I n K P Per m anent , t he al l eged i nfr i nger ar gued thati tus ed var i at i ons of the t erm “mi cr o col or ” t o r efe rt o i t s goods i n aU n d e rly in g th e c a se w a s a lo n g -sta n d in g c ir c u it sp lit 27 o v er w h ethe r a find ing o f l ikely co n fu sion fo rec lose d a statuto ry des cr i pt i ve fa i rus e def

ens e. See K P Perm an ent , 125 S. C t

. at 5 4 7 (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). D e sc rip tiv e f

a ir u se a n d n o m in a tiv e u se “ a re q u ite 28 di ffe r ent fr om eac h ot her and bear l i t t l e r es embl ance exce ptt hat b o t h a r e t yp e s o f

n o n - i n f r i n g i n g u s e . ” 2 J

. T h o m a s M c C a r t h y, 79 des cr i pt i ve w ayw i t houtr efe r ence t o t he tr ademar k ow ner . T he q u e stio n b e f

o re th e C o u rt w a s w h e th e r a f in d in g o f

lik e ly confus i on w oul d for ecl os e as s er t i on of t he st atut or ydes cr i pt i ve fai r us e defens e. T he C our thel d t hati tw oul d not , concl udi ng 27 t hat “our hol di ng t hat fai r us e can occur al ong w i t h s om e degr ee o f co nfus i on does notfor ecl os e the r el evanc e of the ext entof an yli k elyco n su m er c o n fu sion in as sess ing w h ethe r a defe ndant ’ s us e i s obj ect i vel yfai r . ” 125 S. C t

. at550.
D es pi t e the maj or i t y ’ s s ugges t i o n s t o t he contr ary , t he C o u rt ’s sec o n d h o lding is no t earth-sh att ering – the C o u rt m er el yhel d t hateven thou g h a fi ndi ng of l i kel yconfus i on w ou l d n ot for ecl ose asser t i on of the st atutorydescri pti ve fa i r use defe ns e, cour t s m i ghtnonethel es s fac t ort he ext ent of conf us i on i nt o det er m i ni ng w hethert he pu rpo rt edl ydes cr i pt i ve us e w as n o t fair. In th e c o n text o f d esc ri p ti v e f a ir u se, th e C o u rt ’s s t at ement m akes s ens e beca us e the ext entof conf us i on m i ghtbe r el evant t o det er m i ni ng w hether a the m ark w as “us ed fa i r l y ” or

“ o t h e r wi s e t h a n a s a ma r k

. ” La n h a m Ac t§ 3 3 ( b ) ( 4 ) , 1 5 U. S

. C. § 1 1 1 5 (b)(4 ). B u t des cripti v e f air use an d n o m in a tiv e u se a re v e ryd if f e re n t an im a ls: in d e sc rip tiv e f a ir u se , the k e yin q u iryis w hether a pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark i s bei ng us ed i n a des cr i pt i ve s ens e, buti n nom i nat i ve use cas es , cour t s as k one quest i on al one: i s t he defe ndant ’ s us e l i kel yt o confus e? I ndeed, even w hi l e not i ng 28M c C a rth yo n T ra d e m a rk s a n d U n f a ir C o m p e tit io n , § 1 1 :4 5 (4 th ed. 2005)

. A s s t at ed byt he N i nt h C i r cui ti n di s t i ngui s hi ng nom i nat i ve us e fr om des cr i pt i ve ( orcl as s i c) fai rus e: T he di s t i nct i on b et w een c l as s i c and nomi nat i ve f a i r use i s i m po rt ant for tw o reasons: (1) cl ass ic and nom i nat i ve fai r us e ar e governed bydi ffe r ent a n a ly se s; a n d (2 ) th e c las sic f a ir u se a n a ly sis o n ly com plem ents the li k eli h o o d o f c u s t om erconfus i on anal y s i s s etfor t h i n Sl eekc r aft , w her eas t he nom i nat i ve fai r us e anal y s i s r epl aces t he S l eekcraftanaly si s. C ai rns, 29 2 F

. 3d at11 50

. In ot her w ords, descri pti ve fa i r use l oo ks bey on d confu si on con si derat i on s w hereas nom i nati ve u se l ooks onl yt o a l i kel i hood of conf us i on. 80 t hats om e ca s es had tr eat ed the ext entof conf us i on as a r el evant co n side rati o n in d esc ri p ti v e f air use ca ses, th e S u p rem e C o u rt i m m edi at el yand unequi vocal l ycaut i oned t hat “[c ] er t ai nl yone c a n n o t g e t o u t o f

[ su c h c a se s] a n yd e f

e n se b u rd e n to n e g a te [conf us i on] ent i r el y . ” 125 S. C t

. at549.
I tma k e s n o s e n s e t o f o r c e t h e s q u a r e p e g o f KP Per m anent ’ s s econd hol di ng about des cr i pt i ve fai rus e i nt o t he rou n d h o le of

n o m inative u se. N o m inative us e is n o thing m o re t han an i nqui r yi nt o l i kel y confus i on. B yr eadi ng K P Per m anent t o perm i ta bi fur cat ed an aly si s w her e conf us i on i s t he ce nt r al focus on eac h s i de, t he maj or i t yr eads K P Per m anentt o hol d t hat b o th : 1 ) d e f

e n d a n t b e a rs n o b u rd e n o f n e g a tin g c o n f u s io n , and 2) defe ndantbear s a bur den of ne gat i ng confus i on. N orm i ght the m ajorityjusti fyit s d ef en se b ych ara cterizi n g itas an inq u iry in to g o o d f

a ith

. A s sta ted b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt, “ N o r w o u ld it m ake s ens e t o pr ovi de an a ffi r m at i ve def ens e of no c onfus i on pl us good fai th, w h en mer el yr ebut t i ng t he pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e on81 c o n f u sio n w o u ld e n tit le th e d e f e n d a n t to ju d g m e n t, go o d f a ith or not

. ” I d

. I n d e e d , g o o d f a i t h i s me r e l y t h e f

l i p s i d e of bad f a i th , a n d a s d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y, t h e i n t e n tf a c t o rh a s a l w a ys r emai ned partof the pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e underL app. T h e m a jo r it y’s a ttem p t to re lyo n K P P e rm a n e n t in s uppor tof i t s bi fur cat ed ana l y s i s i s fur t her and fi nal l ybel i ed by t he fa ctt hatt he C our tt ook pai ns t o not e t h at it w as not a d d r e s s i n g n o mi n a t i v e u s e . S e e i d

. a t5 4 6 n . 3 ( “ No rd o we a dd res s t he C ou rt of A pp eal s’ s dis cussi on of ‘ no m i nati ve f a ir u se.’”). T h e m ajority ’s tran sp lantati o n o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s com m ents abo ut descr i pti ve fa i r use i nto the n om i nati ve u se cont ext i s no m or e eff

ect i ve t han r epl aci ng a healt h y hum an h e a rt w ith o n e f

ro m a n o th e r sp e c ies . In sh o rt, c las sic f a ir u se is a d e f e n se . N o m in a tiv e u se is n o t.
III . M er el ycr i t i ci zi ng t he maj or i t y ’ s appr oach w oul d be hol l ow comm ent ary w i t houtpr ovi di ng i n addi t i on an out l i ne on how nom i nat i ve use anal y s i s can pr ocee d i n a fa s hi on cons i s t ent w i t h t he Lanham A ct , K P Perm anent , Pr es t onet t es , Sear l e, and t his C ou rt ’s l on g-st and i ng L app t est

. N eedles s t o say , becau se t he nomi nat ive us e ana l y s i s i s an i nqui r yi nt o t he l i kel i hood of confus i on, t he bur den mustr emai n w i t h pl ai nt i ffs , al t hough – as in a n ytra d e m a rk in f

rin g e m e n t ca se – d e f

e n d a n t re m a in s f

re e to puton ar gum ent s and evi d en ce to r ebutt hos e putfor t h by pl ai nt i ffs

. I s t ar tas I m us tw i t h r efe ren ce t o ours t andar d t en fac t or s , as phr as ed i n our deci s i on i n A & H Spor t s w ear , I nc. v. V ic to ri a ’s S e c re t S to re s , In c .:82 ( 1) t he degr ee of

s i m i l ar i t ybetw een t he ow ner ’ s m ark and the al l eged i nfr i ngi ng m ark; ( 2) t he s t r ength of the ow ner ’ s m ark; (3) the p ri c e o f th e g o o d s an d o ther f ac tors i ndi cat i ve of the ca r e and at t ent i on expec t ed of cons um er s w hen maki ng a pur chas e; ( 4) t he l ength o f t i m e the def endanthas us ed t he mar k w it houtevi dence of ac tual confus i on ar i s i ng; ( 5) t he i nt ent of t he defenda nti n adopt i ng t he m ar k; ( 6) t he evi dence of ac tual confus i on; ( 7) w hethert he goods , com p et i ng ornot c o mp e t i n g , a r e ma r k e t e d t h r o u g h t h e s a me c h a n n e l s o f

t r a d e a n d a d v e r t i s e d t h r o u g h t h e s a me m edi a; ( 8) t he ext entt o w hi ch the t ar get s of the par t i es ’ s al es eff

or t s ar e the s ame; ( 9) t he r el at i on shi p of the goods i n t he mi nds of cons um er s , w het h er beca us e of t he near - i dent i t yof the pr oduct s , t he s i m i l ari t yof fun ct i on , or ot her fact ors;T hi s up d a t e d f o rmul a t i o n p o s t

- d a t e s Lap p a n d a d dr es s es 29 bo t h co m peti t i ve an d n on -com peti t i ve u ses. “W h en a defe ndantus es a tr ademar k nom i nal l y , t he 30 tra d e m a rk w ill b e id e n ti c a l to th e p lain tiff ’s m a rk , at le a st in t erm s of the w or ds i n ques t i on. T hus , appl i cat i on of the [norm al m u lt i- fa ctor] test, w h ich f o cu ses o n the s im il arityo f th e m ark us ed byt h e p l a i n t i f

f a n d t h e d e f

e n d a n t , wou l d l e a d t o t he inco rrect co n clus ion tha t v ir tuallyall n o m inative u ses a re confus i ng. ” Pl ayboy E nt erpr i s es , I nc. v. W el l es , 279 F. 3d 796, 8 0 1 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 83 ( 10) ot herfac t s s uggesti ng t hatt he cons um i ng p u b lic m ig h t ex p e c t th e p rio r o w n e r to m anufactur e both pr oduct s , orexpec tt he pr i or o w n er to m an u fa cture a p roducti n the d ef en d an t’ s m a rk e t, or e x p e c t th a t th e p rio r ow n e r is lik e lyto e x p a n d in to th e d e f

e n d a n t’s m a rk e t. 237 F. 3d 198, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( di s cus s i ng I nt erpace C orp. v. L a p p , In c ., 7 2 1 F .2 d 4 6 0 (3 d C ir

. 1 9 8 3 )). T h e m a jo rityis 29 corr e c t th a tt he fa ct ors m aybe tai l ored t o the ci rcum st ances:

“ [ n ] o ta l l f

a c t o r s wi l l b e r e l e v a n ti n a l l c a s e s , ” a n d “ d i ffe r ent fac t or s m aypr oper l ybe ac cord ed di ffe r entw ei ght s dependi ng on t he part i cul arfac tual s et t i ng. ” I d.
I a g r e e wi t h t h e ma

j o r i t yt h a tL a p p f

a c t o r s o n e a n d t wo ar e unl i kel yt o carr yanyw ei ght i n a nom i nat i ve use c as e. I n a cas e w her e a de fenda nti s us i ng a pl ai nt i ff’ s m ark t o r efe rt o t he pl ai nt i ff, t he us e w i l l al w ay s be i dent i cal

. M or eover , i tm akes 30 l i t t l e s ens e t o gi ve w ei ghtt o fac t ort w o, t he s t r ength of the mar k, as nom i nat i v e u ses w i l l be made w i t h bot h w eak a nd s t r ong m arks.84 T he maj or i t yfocus es i n t hi s cas e on onl yfourof the t en La p p f a c t o r s ( f a c t o r s t h r e e t h r o u g h s i x ) , b u t a g r e e s t h a ti n s o me cas es , t he r emai ning fac t or s ( s even thr ough t en) m i ghtbe r el evan t

. I bel i eve i ti s i m por t antt o expl or e ci r cumst ance s w h e re L a p p f

a c to rs s e v e n th ro u g h ten m a yb e p e rtin e n t. In th is cas e, m uch of the part i es ’ s ervi ces , cus t om er s , advert i s i ng, and m a rk e ts a r e sim ilar a n d m a yb e in so m e re g a rd s id e n tica l. A l t hough t he degr ee of i den ti ty o r s i m i l ar i t yi s fort he D i s t r i ct C o u rt to d e ter m in e in th e f irst in sta n c e , the m a

jo rityc o rre c tly con cl ud es that t o t he extent t he part i es sha re i den t i cal ser vices , c u sto m e rs, a d v e rtisin g , an d m a rk e ts, su c h id e n tity lac k s v a lu e in d e ter m in in g th e lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n . S e e M a

j. O p . at 3 3 (“ it w oul d al m os tbe expe ct ed that[def endant ] and mostot her defe ndant s in a nom i nat i ve us e ca s e w oul d m arkett hemsel ves t hr ough a medi a i n w hi ch t he m arks t o w hi ch theyar e r efe r r i ng w oul d be ea s i l yr ecog n ized and have m eani ng orr el evanc e, n am elych an n els sim il ar t o tho se use d b y p lai n ti ff ”). H o w ev er, t o t he ext entt hatt he part i es ’ s ervi ces , cus t om er s , advert i s i ng, and mar ket s ar e di

f f er ent , fac t or s s even t hr ough t en m aycouns el agai ns ta l ikelihood of confus i on. C om par e thi s cas e t o one i nvol vi ng a new s cas t er . W hati f th e hypot het i cal new s cas t er used p l ai nti ffs’ lo go s as par tof a n ew scastabo ut pl ai nti ffs? R egar dl es s of Fi r s t A m endmenti s s ues , t he di ffe r ence s betw een th e p a rties ’ se rv ice s w o u ld th e m se lv e s c o u n se l ag a in st a l i k e l i h o o d o f

c o n f u s i o n . T h u s , a s r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y, f a c to rs se v e n th ro u g h ten a re n o t per se i r r el evant , and the door rem ai ns op en to t hem i n rel evan tcases. In lig h t o f th e se c o n sid e ra tio n s, I re c o m m e n d th a t in cas es i nvol vi ng col or abl e nomi nat i ve us e – i. e. , w her e a d e f e n d a n t h a s u se d a p lain tiff ’s m a rk to re f e r at lea st in p a rt to t he pl ai nt i ff – the D i s t r i ctC our tcons i derL app fa ct or s three85 t hr ough t en, s l i ght l y rew o r ded and r enumber ed one thr ough e ig h t: 1. T he pr i ce of t he goods ors ervi ces an d ot her fa ctors i ndi cat i ve of the ca r e and a t t ent i on expec t ed of c o n s u m e r s w h e n m a k i n g a p u r c h a s e . A s n o t e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y, t hi s r emai ns a r el ev anti nqui r y . T he che apert he goods ort he l es s s ophi s t i cat ed the cons um er s , t he m or e l i kel yt hata us e may confus e. T hi s fac t orw i l l r equi r e ca r eful at t ent i on by t he D i s t r i ct C our ton r emand. Peopl e buy i ng and sell ing homes m i ghtbe li k elyto tak e e sp ec ial ca re in c h o o sing an ag en t, b u t th e u se h ere m ayal so give r i se t o co nc e rn s u nd er the “ini t i al i nter est confus i on” doctr i ne. See C heckpoi ntSy s . , I nc. v. C heck Poi nt Soft w ar e Techs

. , I nc. , 269 F. 3d 270, 292 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng i ni t i al i nt er es tconfus i on act i onabl e undert he Lanham A ct ) ; s ee al s o L ampar el l o v. Fal w el l , – F. 3d –, N os . 04- 2011 , 0 4- 2122, 2005 W L 2030729, at*6 ( 4t h C i r . A ug. 24, 2005) ( quot i ng C heckpoi ntand n ot i ng l i m i t at i ons on i ni t i al i nt er es tdoctr i ne w h ere u se w as f

o r crit ici sm o r co m m en taryrathe r th an p rof it ).
2. T he l ength of t i m e the def endant h as us ed the m ar k w i tho u tevi dence of ac tual confus i on ar i s i ng. “I f a defe ndant ’ s pr oducthas been s ol d foran appr eci abl e per i od of t i m e w i t ho u t evi dence of ac tual confus i on, one ca n i nfert hat cont i nued m ar ket i ng w i l l notl ead t o cons um erconfus i on i n t he futur e. ” V er s a Pr ods

. , 50 F. 3d at205. “T he l ongert he chal l enged producthas been i n us e, t he s t r ongert hi s i nfer ence w i l l be. ” I d.
3

. T h e i n t e n to f

t h e d e f e n d a n ti n u s i n g t h e ma r k

. As n o ted b yth e m a

jo rity , “th e k e yin q u iryis w h e th e r th e m a rk is bei ng us ed s o as t o conveya conne ct i on betw een the par t i es t hatB u t as n o ted, I can n o t a s c rib e to th e m ajority ’s 31 conj unct i ve phr as i ng t hatw oul d r equi r e thatt he use be nece s s aryt o des cr i be both a pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oductor s ervi ce a nd a defe ndant ’ s pr oductors ervi ce. See s upr a not e 11. 86 m aynotexi s t

. ” M aj

. O p. at36. A l t hough I d isag ree w i t h t he m ajority ’s bifu rca ti o n an d d u p li cat i on o f th e inten t i n q u iry , there can be no doubt t hat t hi s i nqui r y i s cruci al and m ay i ncl ude, as not ed byt he maj or i t y , “my r i ad” f act or s . See M aj

. O p. at38. T hus , t h e D ist ri ct C our ts houl d i nqui r e as t o t he natur e of the defe nd ant’ s cond uct and t he acc uracy of i t s use of t he p l ai nti ffs’ m ark s (ak in t o the m ajority ’s thir d “n o m inative fa iru se” p ron g ). T hes e i nqui r i es ext end furt hert o l ooki ng t o t he purp o se of t he u se (a k in to the m ajority ’s f ir st “n o m inative f

air use ” p ron g ), 31 and t o w hetherdefe ndant“t ook t oo m uch” w i th an ey e t ow ar ds c re a tin g c o n su m e r c o n f u sio n (i.e., the se c o n d “ n o m in a tiv e f a ir u se ” p ro n g ), su c h a s a c o m p e tit o r u s in g a p lain tiff ’s m a rk in lo g o f o rm , la rg e r typ e , o r d if

f e re n t co lo rs, in a w a yd e sig n e d to dr aw att ent i on above a nd bey ond pr opernom i nat i ve us e. I n d e e d , t h i s f

a c t o rwa s e x p r e s s l y c o n s i d e r e d i n S e a r l e , wh e r e we enj oi ned the def

endantfr om s et t i ng t he m ark apart i n l ar geror di ffe r ent l ycol or ed type, and r equ ir ed i tt o us e “® ” and a di s cl ai m er . 715 F. 2d at839, 843.
4

. T h e e v iden ce o f a ctua l con fu sion

. T h e “ m o re evi dence of ac tual confus i on t hata pl ai nt i ff c an must er , t he s tr o n g er t he l i kel i hood of conf us i on i n t he futur e, butl ack of e v id e n c e o f

a c tu a l co n f

u sio n ,” at l e a st w h e re th e tim e p e rio d is s hor torthe ci r cumst ance s do noti ndi cat e thats uch evi dence s houl d have be en ava i l abl e, “d o es n o tr ai s e an i nfer ence t hat t her e i s n o l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n f u s i o n . ” Ver s a Pr o d s . , 5 0 F. 3 d at 205. H er e, p la i nt i ffs conce de forpurpos es of thi s m ot i on t hat87 th e re is n o su c h e v id e n c e , w h ich f o r p re se n t p u rp o se s w e ig h s in d ef en d an t’ s fa v o r. 5. W hethert he goods or s ervi ces , compet i ng ornot compet i ng, ar e mar ket ed thr ough t he s ame channe l s of tr ade a nd ad v erti sed thro u g h the s am e m ed ia. W h er e th e p arti es a re c o m p e tit o rs a n d th e c h a n n e ls o f tra d e o r m e d ia a re id e n tica l, th is fact or has no rel evan ce bec ause co m p e ti t ors bynatur e use i dent i cal channe l s and medi a. H ow ever , t o t he ext en t tha tt he par t i es ar e notcompet i t or s , as i n t he ca s e of the hypot het i cal br oadca s t er , ort he part ies us e di ffe r i ng channe l s of tr ade or m edi a, t hi s fac t or l es s ens t he l i kel i hood of conf us i on beca us e of d iffe re n ce s in the targe t aud ienc es a n d the p lace s w h ere cons um er s w i l l s ee the m arks us ed. I n t hi s cas e, defe ndantand p lain tiff s a re n o t id e n tica l co m p e tit o rs b u t ap p e a r to c o m p e te in s om e r es pect s . T hey al s o appea r t o us e w ebs i t es gear ed t ow ar ds s i m i l ar audi ence s . T he ext ent t hat t he par t i es ar e or ar e not compet i t or s , or do or do not have i dent i cal channe l s of tr ade or m edi a, s houl d be det erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our tupon r emand. If id e n tica l, th e n th is f

a c to r h a s n o w e ig h t. If o n lyslig h tly di ffe r ent , t he fa ct orhas s om e but lit tl e bear i ng i n r educi ng t he l i kel i hood of conf

us i on. A nd t he gr eat ert he di ffe r ence s , t he m o re w eigh t th e D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld p lace o n this fac tor. 6. T he ext entt o w hi ch the t ar g et s of the part i es ’ s al es eff or t s ar e the s ame . T h e r at i onal e behi nd fac t ors i x i s s i m i l ar t o t hatforfac t orfi ve. I n a n o m inative use c as e, t he mer e fa ct th a t th e p a rties tar g e t id e n tica l cu sto m e rs h a s n o b e a rin g . B u t to t he ext entt he t ar get ed cus t om er s di ff er, t hatl es s ens t he li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion

. U p o n rem an d , the D istrict C o u rt sh o u ld d eterm ine th e e x tent to w h ich th e t arg eted cu stom ers a re id e n tica l o r n o t.88 7. T he r el at i ons hi p of the goods o r se rvi ces i n t he m i nds of cons um er s , w hetherbeca us e of the near

- i dent i t y of the produ ct s or s ervi ces, t he si m i l ari t y of f un ct i on , or ot her fact ors. T he s ame r at i onal e appl i es . T he mer e fa ctthat t he goods or ser vices are i den t i cal has n o probati ve v al ue b ecause compet i t or s m ayoft ent i m es m ake otherw i s e nonconf us i ng n o m inative u se. B u t t o the e x tent the g o o d s o r serv ices d if fe r, t hat l e s s e n s t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n f u s i o n . Upo n r e ma n d, t he D i stri ctC ou rtshou l d det erm i ne the ext ent t o w hich the p art i es’ se rv ice s a re sim ilar o r n o t.
8

. O th e r f

a c ts s u g g e stin g th a t th e c o n su m in g p u b lic m i ght e xpectt he pr i orow nert o pr ovi de both pr oduct s or s er vi ces , or e x p ec t t he pr i orow nert o pr ovi de a pr oductor s er vi ce i n t he def

endant ’ s m arket , orexpec tt hatt he pri orow ner i s l i kel yt o expand i nt o t he defe ndant ’ s m arket

. T hi s fac t oras ks w h ethe r c o n su m ers w o u ld ex p ec t p lai n ti ff s to o ff er d ef en d an t’ s s er vi ces, oroffe rs er vi ces i n defe ndant ’ s m arket , ort o expand i nt o defe ndant ’ s m arket

. T he s ame r at i onal e appl i es her e as for fac t or s fi ve, six , and seve n; namel y , t o t he ext entt hatt he co n su m ing p u b li c e x p ec ts plainti ff s to o ff er d ef en d an t’ s se rv ice s, to o f

f e r se rv ice s in th e d e f

e n d a n t’s m a rk e t, o r to expand i nt o t he defe ndant ’ s m arket , t hi s fac t or has no bear i ng. B u t t he l es s t he cons um i ng publ i c w oul d expec ts uch conduc t fr om pl ai nt i ffs , t he m or e t hi s fac t orcut s agai ns ta l i kel i hood of c o n f u sio n . U p o n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r th is f a c to r a s w e ll.
I V.
T h e test ou tl ined ab o v e b est sati sfies K P P erm an en t’ s r equi r ement t hatpl ai nt i ffs bearthe bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a89 l i kel i hood of conf

us i on. I tal s o s at i s fi es t he r equi r ement s of the L anham A ct , Pr es t onet t es , and Sear l e, w hi ch pr ovi de that nom i nat ive u se i s us e thati s notl i kel yt o confus e. U nl i ke the m aj ori t y ’s app roach, t his t est i s j ud i ci al l y m anag eable because i tdo es not bi furcat e and du pli cat e t he an al y si s. T he m aj or i t y obj ect s t hat i t w oul d be unfa i rt o depr i ve a defe ndantof a nomi nat i ve fa i rus e def ens e. T hi s comp lai nt r i ngs hol l ow : defi ni ng “fa i rus e” i n t erm s of nonconf us i on does n o t give the m ajorityli ce n se to p lace o n d ef en d an t’ s sh o u lders a b u rde n that itsh o u ld n o t bea r. Itis th ere fo re the m ajo ri ty’ s f o rm u la tio n th a t is “ u n f

a ir .”
M o re o v e r, th e m a

jo rity is sim p lyw ro n g th a t d e f e n d a n ts wi l l h a v e n o wa yo f

u n d e r c u t t i n g a c h a r g e o f i n f r i n g e me n t

. As th e S up rem e C ou rtno t ed in K P P erm anen ti n respon se t o this veryobj ect ion, a def

endantr emai ns fr ee t o “off err ebut t i ng evi dence t o u n der cutt he for ce of t he pl ai nt i ff’ s evi dence on” l i k e l i h o o d o f

c o n f u s i o n . KP P e r ma n e n t , 1 2 5 S

. Ct

. a t5 4 9

. As th e S u p re m e C o u r t h e ld , “a ll th e d e f e n d a n t n e e d s to d o is to lea v e th e f

a c tf in d e r u n p e rsu a d e d th a t th e p lain tiff h a s c a rrie d its o w n b u rde n o n that p o int. A d ef en d an t has n o n ee d o f a co u rt ’s t rue bel i ef w hen agnos t i ci s m w i l l do. ” I d.
V.
For t he r eas ons di s cus s ed above , I cannotj oi n i n t he m aj or i t y ’ s for m ul at i on of a bi fur cat ed t es tbeca us e i truns afoul of the Lanham A ct , K P Per m anent , Pres t onet t es , and Sear l e, each of w hi c h make i t c l e a r t ha t t he bu r de n i n no mi na t i ve use cases r em ai ns w i t h p l ai nti ffs. B ecause th e m aj ori t y ’s t est i m perm i s s i bl ypl ace s t he bur den of ne gat ing c onfus i on on90 d e f e n d a n t, an d is in a d d itio n ju d ic ia lly u n m a n a g e a b le , I r es pect ful l ydi s s ent

. I nevert hel es s j oi n i n t he j udgm ent rem and i ng t he case fo r fur t her proceedings.