2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-11-2005

Century 21 v. LendingTree Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 03-4700

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

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

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

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

Recommended Citation

"Century 21 v. LendingTree Inc" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 301.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/301
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-4700

 

CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE CORPORATION;

COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION;

ERA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.

 v.

LENDINGTREE, INC.,

 Appellant

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-02810)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.

 
2

Argued December 6, 2004

Before: RENDELL, FISHER, Circuit Judges,

and YOHN*, District Judge.

(Filed October 11, 2005)

Bruce I. Goldstein 

Saiber, Schlesinger, Satz & Goldstein

One Gateway Center, Suite 1300

Newark, NJ 07102-5311

Jeffrey A. Conciatori [ARGUED]

Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges

335 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10017

Counsel for Appellant

 LendingTree, Inc.

______________________________

 * Hon. William H. Yohn, Jr., Judge of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

sitting by designation.
3

Stephen W. Feingold [ARGUED]

Pitney Hardin

7 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Counsel for Appellees

 Century 21 Real Estate Corporation;

 Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation;

 Era Franchise Systems, Inc.

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

This case presents an opportunity for us to consider the

contours of the traditional test for trademark infringement where

the defendant asserts the defense of “nominative fair use.”

More specifically, we must determine what role likelihood of

confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the

defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. 

Appellees, Century 21, Coldwell Banker and ERA

(“CCE”) complain that Appellant Lending Tree (“LT”), in the
4

process of marketing its mortgage services, improperly

referenced CCE’s trademarked services. LT contends that its

use was nominative and fair, and permitted as a matter of law.

“Nominative” fair use is said to occur “when the alleged

infringer uses the [trademark holder’s] product, even if the

alleged infringer’s ultimate goal is to describe his own product.

Nominative fair use also occurs if the only practical way to refer

to something is to use the trademarked term.” KP Permanent

Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 328 F.3d 1061,

1072 (9th Cir. 2003) (rev’d. on other grounds) (quotations

omitted). By contrast, “classic” fair use occurs where the

defendant uses the plaintiff’s mark to describe the defendant’s

own product. New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub.,

Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The use of the term “Volkswagen” by a car mechanic in

an ad describing the types of cars he repairs has been held to

constitute a nominative fair use. See id. at 307 (citing

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 411 F.2d 350

(1969)). Clearly, the mechanic is referring to another’s product,

but does so in order to describe what he does. On the other

hand, the use of the term “micro-colors,” a registered trademark

of one make-up company, referring to the pigments of the

product of a different and competing make-up company that it

used in its own product, was classified as a classic fair use. See

KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc., 328 F.2d at 1072. There, the
5

reference to the mark of another was made in describing its own

product and its attributes.

Traditionally, we have looked to whether a trademark is

likely to cause confusion in order to determine whether a

violation of the Lanham Act has occurred and, thus, whether the

use should be enjoined and prohibited. However, it is unclear

what role “likelihood of confusion” plays in the analysis when

“fair use” is asserted as a defense. Recently, the United States

Supreme Court provided guidance to the courts regarding the

test for classic fair use in KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v.

Lasting Impression I, Inc., 125 S. Ct. 542 (2004). The issue

before us is the extent to which its reasoning applies to the

nominative fair use analysis as well. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Appellees Century 21 and ERA have each been in

business for over 30 years. Coldwell Banker has been in

business for almost 100 years. Each of these real estate

companies oversees a system of franchisees who operate by

reference to the franchisor’s trademark (e.g., Century 21 Smith

Realty). Franchise agreements permit those brokerage

companies to provide realty services under trademarks held by

Cendant Corporation. Every franchisee is granted a license to

use its franchisor’strademark only in connection with its “d/b/a”

name. (Thus, a franchisee could only refer to itself as
6

Century 21 Smith Realty and not just Century 21). There are

over 8,200 franchisees in CCE’s collective systems in the U.S.

Appellant LendingTree describes itself as a diversified

consumer-oriented Internet business that helps consumers

identify and select qualified lenders, real estate brokers, auto

insurers, and other financial service companies. It has a real

estate referral service that consumers can access by visiting its

website and inputting the location and characteristics of the

house they are seeking to buy or sell. LT then selects and

transmits information about up to four real estate companies

participating in LT’s referral network that service that

community. If consumers ultimately use an LT referred broker,

they receive rewards, such as airline frequent flier miles and gift

cards. LT also has an established mortgage referral program

based on contractual relationships with participating financial

institutions identified on its website. 

At the time of this action, LT’s real estate referral

network consisted of more than 650 real estate broker member

companies in the U.S., which collectively operated more than

2,500 offices. More than 9,000 real estate agents in those

offices were registered participants in LT’s network. At least

257 of the approximately 650 real estate broker member

companies participating in the LT network operated a

Century 21, Coldwell Banker, or ERA franchise. 
7

LT’s real estate referral network was formed in 1998 by

HomeSpace, a company from which LT acquired certain assets

in August 2000. As early as 1999, HomeSpace publicly

advertised its real estate referral network in printed materials as

“including brokers representing the nation’s leading franchises,

such as Coldwell Banker, Century 21 ... and ERA.” 

The alleged infringement here is based on the following

uses of CCE’s marks:

(1) A Coldwell Banker “For Sale” sign with a

woman, purporting to be a real estate agent, next to it, on which

the blue and white Coldwell Banker logo was somewhat

obscured by the word “SOLD.” LT’s phone number was at the

bottom. This scene was depicted at the bottom of LT’s

homepage on its website. 

(2) A statement by LT on its “Find a Realtor”

homepage stating that LT will “give you access to a national

network of brokers representing the country’s leading real estate

companies, including Coldwell Banker, ERA and Century 21.”

These three names headed a bullet-pointed list of all such

realtors to whom LT promised access. The marks on those

pages were in block letter format.

(3) LT’s statement on its website’s Help Center

that LT is “[r]epresented by large independent real estate

companies and members of major franchises - Coldwell Banker,
8

Century 21, Prudential, ERA, ReMAX, GMAC (formerly Better

Homes & Gardens), and Realty Executives.”

(4) LT’s use of printed marketing materials that

stated that “LT is affiliated with more than 700 certified brokers

such as Coldwell Banker, Century 21, Prudential, ERA and

RE/MAX.”

In January 2003, Kathryn Geib, in-house counsel for

CCE’s parent company responsible for the enforcement of its

trademarks, wrote to LT to demand that it stop using CCE’s

“marks” on its website in any manner in the operation of its

business. At that time, LT was using CCE’s logos on its

website. After receipt of the letter, LT stopped using the logos

(or any other of CCE’s marks) on that webpage, but continued

to use CCE’s marks in block letter form on other webpages. In

March 2003, Geib learned that LT was using a marketing

coupon containing the “affiliated language” described above.

Geib sent a letter asking LT to stop such use. In May 2003,

CCE discovered that LT was using CCE’s marks, but in block

letters, on its webpage. Geib again wrote, asking LT to stop

such use. 

Not satisfied with the response from LT, CCE

commenced this action and applied for a preliminary injunction

against LT’s use of its marks, claiming unfair competition and

trademark infringement in violation of §§ 32 and 43(a) of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a). At issue in the
9

case before the District Court was the use of CCE’s marks in

block form in bullet points on LT’s webpage, marketing

materials using the “affiliated with” language described above,

and the Coldwell Banker “For Sale” sign.

After oral argument before the District Court, LT

voluntarily implemented certain modifications to its website. It

changed the background color of the “For Sale” sign from blue

to red and removed the phone number at the bottom of the sign,

moved the position of the bullet points with plaintiffs’ names on

them from first to last in its “Find a Realtor” list, and added a

disclaimer to its real estate homepage that “LT is not sponsored

by or affiliated with the parent franchisor companies of any of

the participating members of its network.” LT also added a note

to a pop-up screen saying that “A particular franchisee in your

geographic area may not be available to you through the

LendingTree network if that franchisee is not a participating

member of the network. In addition, it is possible that the

network may not include any franchisee of a particular national

company in a given area.” (Text from www.LendingTree.com

at JA689.) LT notified the District Court of these changes and

represented that all of the language allegedly giving rise to

CCE’s motion had been permanently removed from LT’s

website and would not be used in the future.

The District Court issued its ruling with respect to the

language used by LT at the time the complaint was filed, as well

as the modified language. The District Court determined that
10

LT’s use of Appellees’ names was likely to cause consumer

confusion, that the nominative use defense did not shield LT in

this instance, and thus, granted CCE’s motion for a preliminary

injunction as to the use of CCE’s marks and the “affiliation”

language, but not the “For Sale” sign. The District Court’s

analysis did not separate out the original language from the later

modified language, as the District Court seemed to conclude that

the revisions did not alleviate the problem. LT now appeals this

issuance of the preliminary injunction.

On appeal, we must first decide whether the case was

moot when the District Court issued its ruling, given the fact

that LT had made several changes to the allegedly infringing

language and the picture on its website. If the case was not

moot, we must then determine the proper test to apply in the

situation where a defendant is asserting a nominative fair use

defense to claims of unfair competition and trademark

infringement under the Lanham Act. 

II. Jurisdiction

The District Court had jurisdiction to hear this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. We have jurisdiction

over this interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction under

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 
11

III. Mootness

Although a case may become moot “if the defendant can

demonstrate that there is no reasonable expectation that the

wrong will be repeated, this burden is a heavy one ...” and has

not been met here. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S.

629, 633 (1953) (quotation omitted). The modified language

that LT employed still referenced CCE’s marks and, thus, is

potentially infringing and it cannot be said that LT’s voluntary

discontinued use of certain language completely obviates the

need for injunctive relief. See Lyons Partnership v. Morris

Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 800 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation

omitted). For instance, the use of CCE’s marks in block letter

format could constitute trademark infringement in certain

circumstances. Whether these circumstances are present in this

case is still a question that needs to be resolved. 

Furthermore, were we to hold that LT’s voluntary

cessation of the alleged infringing activities rendered the case

moot, this would potentially mean that LT would “simply be

free to return to [its] old ways after the threat of a lawsuit had

passed.” Iron Arrow Honor Soc. v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 72

(1983) (quotation omitted). Therefore, the case is not moot and

we will proceed to analyze the substantive claims of trademark

infringement and unfair competition.
12

IV. Fair Use

It must be recognized at the outset that “fair use” presents

a fact pattern different from that of a normal infringement suit.

The typical situation in a trademark case involves the

defendant’s having passed off another’s mark as its own or

having used a similar name, confusing the public as to precisely

whose goods are being sold. Likelihood of confusion is the sole

issue. But the fair use defense, by reason of the circumstances

giving rise to its applicability, alters the premise somewhat. The

defendant is not purporting to be selling goods or services that

the plaintiff has trademarked, but, rather, is using plaintiff’s

mark in order to refer to defendant’s own goods or to the goods

of the trademark owner in a way that might confuse the public

as to the relationship between the two. See Cairns v. Franklin

Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,

the legal framework still involves a showing that A’s reference

to B’s mark will likely confuse the public, but the analysis does

not end there, for the use may nonetheless be permissible if it is

“fair.” 

In KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression

I, Inc., 125 S. Ct. 542, 545-46 (2004), the Supreme Court

rejected the notion that, in the context of classic fair use, the

party asserting the fair use defense to a claim of trademark

infringement had any burden to negate the likelihood that the

practice complained of will confuse consumers about the origin

of the services or goods affected. Instead, plaintiff has the
13

exclusive burden to demonstrate likelihood of confusion, and

then defendant’s burden is only to show the affirmative defense

of fair use. The Supreme Court stated, “[s]ince the burden of

proving likelihood of confusion rests with the plaintiff, and the

fair use defendant has no free-standing need to show confusion

unlikely ... it follows that some possibility of consumer

confusion must be compatible with fair use ....” Id. at 550.

Thus, consumer confusion and fair use are not mutually

exclusive. The latter will in essence rebut or excuse the former

so that the use is permissible.

Before the Supreme Court spoke on the issue of classic

fair use, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had charted

a path through a different fair use analysis – nominative fair use.

In New Kids on the Block, 971 F.2d at 308, the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted its own test governing the

nominative fair use analysis where the marks are used, as they

are here and in the case of the mechanic’s ad described above

that referenced Volkswagen, to refer to the plaintiff trademark

owner’s product in order to help better describe the defendant’s

product or service. Thereafter, it refined the test and clarified its

application. See, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279

F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the use of the terms

“Playboy,” “Playmate,” and “Playmate of the Year 1981" on the

website masthead and banner ads and in the metatags of the

website of a former Playmate of the Year were nominative fair

uses because they served to identify the defendant and did not

imply current sponsorship or endorsement); Cairns v. Franklin
14

Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the sale

of collectibles bearing the name and likeness of Princess Diana

was a nominative fair use).

Few other courts have spoken on the precise issue of how

nominative fair use is successfully invoked. Indeed, it seems

that only the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits have referenced

the nominative fair use defense by name and even on these

occasions have done so only to refer to what district courts had

done with the issue or to decline to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s test

as a whole. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147,

156 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that the district court had applied the

standard for nominative fair use as articulated by the Ninth

Circuit, but finding that the court had erred in its application);

see also Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Ltd., 155 F.3d 526, 546

n. 13 (5th Cir. 1998) (adopting the Ninth Circuit’s nominative

fair use test in part); Interactive Products Corp. v. Azz Mobile

Office Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 698 n.6 (6th Cir. 2003)

(footnoting why a district court case involving the nominative

fair use defense was distinguishable from the case before it);

PACAAR Inc. v. TeleScan Technologies, L.L.C., 319 F.3d 245,

256 (6th Cir. 2003) (declining to follow the Ninth Circuit’s

analysis (formulated prior to the Supreme Court’s holding in KP

Permanent Make-Up) and applying the likelihood of confusion

test instead).

Furthermore, this issue is one of first impression in our

Court. See Basic Fun, Inc. v. X-Concepts, 157 F. Supp. 2d 449,
15

456 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (stating that “the Third Circuit does not

recognize the ‘nominative’ fair use defense, which is utilized as

a defense solely in the Ninth Circuit”). The United States

District Court for the District of New Jersey did venture into the

area of nominative fair use defense in Liquid Glass Enterprises,

Inc. v. Dr. ING h.c.f. Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North

America, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D.N.J. 1998). That case

involved the use of Porsche’s trademarks by Liquid Glass, a

corporation that sold car care products. Liquid Glass used

Porsche’s trademarks in its advertisements for car polish – in

particular, an ad involving a provocatively dressed woman

polishing a Porsche 911 with the trademark “PORSCHE”

plainly visible. The court initially analyzed the case under the

nominative fair use defense articulated by the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals in New Kids On The Block, however, it

conflated the test with the plaintiff’s burden of proving

likelihood of confusion. See Liquid Glass, 8 F. Supp. 2d at 403

(finding that Liquid Glass’ fair use defense was defeated, in

part, because Porsche would “likely prevail in demonstrating

that the use of Porsche’s trademarks ... in Liquid Glass’s

advertisements would likely confuse consumers as to Porsche’s

connection with Liquid Glass”). The Court reviewed each of

the traditional factors used to determine the likelihood of

confusion, though this analysis is not even a part of the New

Kids On The Block test. This court’s difficulty in applying the

traditional test for likelihood of confusion together with the

nominative fair use defense highlights the need to clarify the

proper analysis in this area of the law. Given the paucity of the
16

case law on this subject from every court other than the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that Court’s extensive study

of this issue, we will consider the opinions of that Court. 

In New Kids On The Block, the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit considered whether two separate newspapers that

had conducted polls asking readers to vote for their favorite

New Kid On the Block, and charging money for each telephone

vote cast, had employed the “New Kids” trademark in such a

way as to violate the Lanham Act. The trademarked name was

very valuable to the New Kids, as it had been used to sell over

500 different products, the profits of which partially inured to

the benefit of the New Kids. New Kids alleged that the use of

the name in conducting the polls implied that the New Kids

were sponsoring the polls.

The Court began with a discussion of the history of

trademark law, noting that:

[a] trademark is a limited property

right in a particular word, phrase or

symbol. And although the English

language is a language rich in

imagery, we need not belabor the

point that some words, phrases or

symbols better convey their

intended meanings than others...

Thus, trademark law recognizes a
17

defense where the mark is used

only to describe the goods or

services of [a] party, or their

geographic origin. 15 U.S.C.

§ 1115(b)(4). The ‘fair-use’

defense, in essence, forbids a

trademark registrant to appropriate

a descriptive term for his exclusive

use and so prevent others from

acc u r a t e l y de s c r i b i ng a

characteristic of their goods.

New Kids On The Block, 971 F.2d at 306 (quoting Soweco, Inc.

v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1185 (5th Cir. 1980)). 

The court reasoned that nominative fair use cases – “the

class of cases where the use of the trademark does not attempt

to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet

of one product for a different one” – are not the typical fair use

cases. It described the Volkswagen use as an example of this

atypical type of fair use: 

A good example of this is

V o lksw a g e n w erk

Akriengesellschaft v. Church, 411

F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1969), where we

held that Volkswagen could not

prevent an automobile repair shop
18

from using its mark. We

recognized that in “advertising [the

repair of Volkswagens, it] would be

difficult, if not impossible, for

[Church] to avoid altogether the use

of the word ‘Volkswagen’ or its

abbreviation ‘VW,’ which are the

normal terms which, to the public

at large, signify appellant’s cars.”

Id. at 352. Church did not suggest

to customers that he was part of the

Volkswagen organization or that

his repair shop was sponsored or

authorized by VW; he merely used

the words “Volkswagen” and

“VW” to convey information about

the types of cars he repaired.

Therefore, his use of the

Volkswagen trademark was not an

infringing use.

New Kids On The Block, 971 F.2d at 307.

The Court then reasoned that such a situation should be

viewed as “involving a non-trademark use of a mark . . .”: 

Such nominative use of a mark –

where the only word reasonably
19

available to describe a particular

thing is pressed into service – lies

outside the strictures of trademark

law: Because it does not implicate

the source-identification function

that is the purpose of trademark, it

does not constitute unfair

competition; such use is fair

because it does not imply

sponsorship or endorsement by the

trademark holder.

Id. at 308.

The Court distinguished “nominative” fair use from

“classic” fair use, noting that if defendant’s use of the trademark

referred to something other than the plaintiff’s product,

traditional fair use inquiry would continue to govern.

The court then articulated its own test for nominative fair

use: 

[W]here the defendant uses a

trademark to describe the plaintiff’s

product, rather than its own, we

hold that a commercial user is

entitled to a nominative fair use

defense provided he meets the
20

following three requirements:

First, the product or service in

question must be one not readily

identifiable without use of the

trademark; second, only so much of

the mark or marks may be used as

is reasonably necessary to identify

the product or service; and third,

the user must do nothing that

would, in conjunction with the

mark, suggest sponsorship or

endorsement by the trademark

holder. 

Id.

In announcing this new test, New Kids On The Block

rejected traditional trademark infringement analysis. It held that

this test replaces the “likelihood of confusion” test for trademark

cases where nominative fair use is asserted. See Cairns v.

Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). In a

more recent case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

elaborated on its reasoning for this shift. Application of the

likelihood of confusion test, which focuses on the similarity of

the mark used by the plaintiff and defendant, “would lead to the

incorrect conclusion that virtually all nominative uses are

confusing” because “[w]hen a defendant uses a trademark

nominally, the trademark will be identical to the plaintiff’s
Interestingly, the thinking of the Ninth Circuit Court of 1

Appeals appears to have evolved in this regard. The court

reasoned in New Kids On The Block that nominative use does

not risk consumer confusion and is “outside the strictures of

trademark law.” 971 F.2d at 308. Ten years later, however, it

justified replacing the likelihood of confusion test by arguing

that the test would be inaccurate in the nominative use context.

Playboy Enters., 279 F.3d at 801. As explained below, we

21

mark, at least in terms of the words in question.” Playboy

Enters., 279 F.3d at 801. Thus, the likelihood of confusion test

as applied in nominative fair use cases would disadvantage the

defendant by making confusion an all but foregone conclusion.

While we agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

that a distinct analysis is needed for nominative fair use cases,

we do not accept the legal basis or advisability of supplanting

the likelihood of confusion test entirely. First, we do not see

nominative fair use as so different from classic fair use as to

warrant such different treatment. The Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals believed that the two types of fair use could be

distinguished on the basis that nominative fair use makes it clear

to consumers that the plaintiff, not the defendant, is the source

of the trademarked product or service, while classic fair use

does not. Thus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals believed that

a different analysis was appropriate for nominative fair use and

that it could abandon the need for proof of confusion in these

circumstances. New Kids On The Block, 971 F.2d at 307-08.1
believe that neither rationale requires us to abandon the

likelihood of confusion test in the nominative use context, and

particularly not since the Supreme Court’s decision in KP

Permanent Make-Up. 

22

Yet, it is clear to us that even a defendant’s nominative use has

the potential of confusing consumers with respect to its products

or services. Since the defendant ultimately uses the plaintiff’s

mark in a nominative case in order to describe its own product

or services, Cairns, 292 F.3d at 1151 & n.8, even an accurate

nominative use could potentially confuse consumers about the

plaintiff’s endorsement or sponsorship of the defendant’s

products or services. Thus, we disagree with the fundamental

distinction the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals drew between

classic and nominative fair use.

In addition, the approach of the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit would relieve the plaintiff of the burden of

proving the key element of a trademark infringement case –

likelihood of confusion – as a precondition to a defendant’s even

having to assert and demonstrate its entitlement to a nominative

fair use defense. The Supreme Court in KP Permanent MakeUp clearly established that it was plaintiff’s burden in a classic

fair use case to prove likelihood of confusion. There, the Court

noted the difference between fair use and other trademark

infringement claims, opining, as we stated above, that likelihood

of confusion and fair use can coexist. This does not mean that

we should remove the need for finding confusion in the first
As described above, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2

stated its view in New Kids On The Block that the use of

another’s mark to describe plaintiff’s own product is one step

removed from the true scope of the trademark laws and the very

concept of trademark infringement. But this thinking provides

all the more reason that a plaintiff in that situation should be

required to prove that confusion exists before putting the

defendant to its proof. If such cases are truly outside of the

scope of the trademark laws then a plaintiff would simply fail to

show confusion and the court’s inquiry would end.

23

instance. Instead, once the plaintiff proves likelihood of

confusion, defendant only had to show that defendant’s use,

even if confusing, was “fair.”2

This view finds support not only in the Supreme Court’s

recent opinion, but also in the relevant statutory framework.

The very language of the Lanham Act leads us to conclude that

likelihood of confusion is an essential indicator of whether or

not trademark infringement has occurred. Both §§ 32 and 43(a)

of the Lanham Act, allegedly violated in this case, forbid use of

words or marks in a way which is likely to cause confusion as to

the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services. Surely

the plaintiff’s success in its claim must rely on a finding in this

regard. Given this, we decline to read this requirement out of a

case alleging trademark infringement.
24

We are thus left with the firm conviction that the burden

of proving likelihood of confusion should remain with the

plaintiff in a trademark infringement case – including one where

the defendant claims nominative fair use. As detailed below, we

will devise a modified likelihood of confusion test to be

employed in nominative fair use casesthat takesinto account the

concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. Then, we will determine the extent to which we

would adopt the test for nominative fair use that the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals established in light of our

disagreement with that court’s view that nominative fair use is

fundamentally different from classic fair use.

V. The Proper Analytical Approach

for Nominative Fair Use Cases

A. Overview

Today we adopt a two-step approach in nominative fair

use cases. The plaintiff must first prove that confusion is likely

due to the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s mark. As we discuss

more fully below, because our traditional likelihood of

confusion test does not apply neatly to nominative fair use cases,

we suggest eliminating those factors used to establish confusion

in other trademark infringement cases that do not “fit” in the

nominative use context. Once plaintiff has met its burden of

proving that confusion is likely, the burden then shifts to

defendant to show that its nominative use of plaintiff’s mark is
25

nonetheless fair. To demonstrate fairness, the defendant must

satisfy a three-pronged nominative fair use test, derived to a

great extent from the one articulated by the Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. Under our fairness test, a defendant must

show: (1) that the use of plaintiff’s mark is necessary to

describe both the plaintiff’s product or service and the

defendant’s product or service; (2) that the defendant uses only

so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary to describe

plaintiff’s product; and (3) that the defendant’s conduct or

language reflect the true and accurate relationship between

plaintiff and defendant’s products or services.

As an initial matter, we recognize that our concurring

colleague rejects the bifurcated approach that we now adopt. He

argues instead that the factors we consider under the fairness test

should be incorporated into the likelihood of confusion analysis.

In his view, our bifurcated approach places a heavy burden on

the defendant to negate confusion and is judicially

unmanageable. However, our approach does nothing of the

kind. 

We conclude that the broad based likelihood of confusion

test our concurring colleague proposes is misplaced for several

reasons. First, it is largely out of sync with the existing

jurisprudence on fair use. The concurrence’s test allows no real

possibility of the co-existence of fair use with some likelihood

of confusion, yet this is precisely what the Supreme Court’s

holding in KP Permanent Make-Up specifically contemplates.
The concurrence relies heavily on a mix of case law that 3

was, in our view, largely undermined by the Supreme Court’s

holding in KP Permanent Make-Up. Before the Supreme

Court’s opinion in that case, a finding of likelihood of confusion

sounded the death knell for a classic fair use defense in some

circuits. See KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting

Impression I, Inc., 328 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“[T]here can be no fair use if there is a likelihood of confusion

. . . .”); PACAAR, 319 F.3d at 256 (“A finding of likelihood of

confusion forecloses a [classic] fair use defense.”). Likewise,

the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits stated,

prior to KP Permanent Make-Up, that nominative fair use is not

an infringement so long as there is no likelihood of confusion.

Cairns, 292 F.3d at 1151; Pebble Beach, 155 F.3d at 546. These

courts have not considered the viability of their approach since

KP Permanent Make-Up was decided. See Ty, Inc. v. Publ’ns

Int’l, Ltd., infra, at *7. We rely on the Ninth Circuit precedent

26

See KP Permanent Make-Up, 125 S. Ct. at 550 (“[S]ome

possibility of consumer confusion must be compatible with fair

use . . . .”). In addition, our concurring colleague rejects the

notion that nominative fair use could be used as an affirmative

defense, viewing it instead as a confusion substitute. Yet, the

Supreme Court clearly views fair use (albeit classic fair use) as

an affirmative defense. Id. at 548-49 (referring to the

affirmative defense of fair use). The concurrence fails to

explain why KP Permanent Make-Up should neither control nor

inform our analysis here, choosing instead to ignore the Court’s

dictates in that case as they apply to nominative fair use. After 3
insofar as it identifies the need for a separate test for nominative

fair use, but we reject its view that this test should be a

substitute for likelihood of confusion. A nominative use

defendant need only prove fairness and is not required to negate

confusion.

Judge Fisher points to Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 4

U.S. 359 (1924), and G.D. Searle & Co. v. Hudson

Pharmaceutical Corp., 715 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1983), as authority

for limiting our inquiry to likelihood of confusion. However,

even a cursory review of those opinions–dating back 80 and 20

years, respectively–reveals little in the way of guidance for an

analysis of nominative fair use. Indeed, no reference to “fair

27

that decision, it seems to us that neither classic or nominative

fair use should rise and fall based on a finding of likelihood of

confusion. Classic fair use and nominative fair use are different

in certain respects, but it is unclear to us why we should ask

radically different questions when analyzing a defendant’s

ability to refer to a plaintiff’s mark in the two contexts. As we

have already stated, in both nominative and classic fair use cases

the defendant uses the plaintiff’s mark descriptively in a way

that potentially confuses consumers about the relationship

between the plaintiff and the defendant’s product or services. In

the classic fair use context, the defendant uses the mark to

describe its own product, and in the nominative context, the

defendant references plaintiff’s product in order to describe its

own. The key first inquiry in both situations should be whether

there is a likelihood of confusion. The only other court to 4
use,” let alone “nominative fair use,” can be found in either

opinion. Both cases seem, instead, to stand for the proposition

that clear and truthful references to the products of others are

permitted. Thus, the underlying theme of those opinions seems

to support, rather than undercut, an analysis that specifically

examines whether the use is clear and truthful, as does the

affirmative defense we posit, and that the Supreme Court has

embraced.

Moreover, our analysis does not disturb the holding of

either Prestonettes or Searle. After our decision today, courts

will continue to inquire into confusion, as they did in both of

those cases. Since KP Permanent Make-Up has altered the

landscape, however, we believe it is clear that likelihood of

confusion need not, and should not, be solely determinative of

nominative fair use. Fairness is a distinct concept from

confusion, and it should be measured through a distinct inquiry.

28

consider the application of nominative fair use doctrine since

KP Permanent Make-Up has embraced this logic. Ty, Inc. v.

Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., No. 99 C 5565, 2005 WL 464688, at * 6-8

(N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2005).

Second, while the concurrence worries that a nominative

use defendant will be overly burdened under our bifurcated

approach, we believe that his approach is actually more

burdensome to such a defendant. If the factors for determining

fairness were incorporated into the likelihood of confusion test,
29

a plaintiff’s showing of confusion might well overwhelm a

defendant’s showing of fair use. This would essentially force a

defendant asserting nominative fair use to negate all likelihood

of confusion to succeed, a proposition that the Supreme Court

rejected in KP Permanent Make-Up. Under our approach, the

defendant has no duty to negate confusion as such, but rather

must merely show that its use of the plaintiff’s mark is fair, a

burden which, by contrast, is not cumbersome. Thus, it is our

view that the bifurcated approach is ultimately less burdensome

to a nominative use defendant than the analysis the concurrence

proposes. 

Finally, we believe that the bifurcated approach that we

adopt today is more workable than a unified confusion/fairness

test. We leave the now familiar test for likelihood of confusion

largely intact and in the form in which district courts are

accustomed to applying it. Our test for nominative fair use

considers distinct factors that are readily susceptible to judicial

inquiry. By contrast, the concurrence would incorporate several

new considerations into the already lengthy ten-part test for

confusion and ask district courts to balance a plaintiff’s showing

of confusion against a defendant’s showing of fair use. Because

confusion and fairness are separate and distinct concepts that

can co-exist, blending them together into one test is, to our

mind, a much less manageable approach.
30

B. The Proper Test For Likelihood of Confusion

As we have noted, and as the Ninth Circuit in New Kids

on the Block also stated, the “likelihood of confusion” test does

not lend itself nicely to a nominative fair use fact pattern. The

traditional likelihood of confusion test has been set forth in our

case law, specifically in Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold,

Inc., 589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir. 1978) and Interspace Corp. v. Lapp,

Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir. 1983). It is a multi-factor test

that assesses the following:

(1) degree of similarity between the owner’s

mark and the alleged infringing mark;

(2) strength of the owner’s mark;

(3) price of the goods and other factors

indicative of the care and attention

expected of consumers when making a

purchase;

(4) length of time the defendant has used the

mark without evidence of actual

confusion;
31

(5) intent of the defendant in adopting the

mark;

(6) evidence of actual confusion;

(7) whether the goods, though not competing,

are marketed through the same channels of

trade and advertised through the same

media;

(8) the extent to which the targets of the

parties’ sales efforts are the same;

(9) the relationship of the goods in the minds

of consumers because of the similarity of

function; and

(10) other facts suggesting that the consuming

public might expect the prior owner to

manufacture a product in the defendant's

market or that he is likely to expand into

that market.

589 F.2d at 1229.

We have come to call these factors the “Lapp” factors.

Although they are often helpful in determining whether a certain

use of a mark is likely to confuse consumers, we have
32

recognized that “the Lanham Act does not require that they be

followed precisely so long as the relevant comparisons

suggested by the test are made.” A&H Sportswear II, 237 F.3d

198, 207 (3d Cir. 2000). In the context of a nominative use of

a mark, such as the one we are presented with here, certain Lapp

factors are either unworkable or not suited or helpful as

indicators of confusion in this context. That is because, by

definition, nominative use involves the use of another’s

trademark in order to describe the trademark owner’s own

product. Further, certain of the Lapp factors applied

mechanically would inevitably point towards likelihood of

confusion where no likelihood of confusion may actually exist.

Thus, we must tailor the test and measure only those factors that

are meaningful and probative in the context of nominative fair

use.

Specifically, the first two Lapp factors would indicate a

likelihood of confusion in a case such as this one simply

because the mark is being employed in a nominative manner.

By way of example, looking at the similarity of the mark would

automatically lead to the conclusion that the use is likely to

confuse simply because the mark is not merely similar, it is

identical. The first Lapp factor does not leave any room for the

consideration of the context of the use – i.e., that the mark is

being used to describe the plaintiff’s own product. Therefore,

it is not appropriate for analysis in a nominative use case.
33

Looking at the strength of CCE’s marks in this case, and

in most nominative use cases, would also weigh in favor of a

finding that the use is likely to confuse. However, defendants

in nominative use cases, like LT in this case, feel they need to

use the actual mark to describe the plaintiff’s product because

of its very strength and what it has come to represent. In reality,

in many such cases, the use of the name may be the only way for

defendant to easily and precisely refer to plaintiff’s product in

a way that will be understood by consumers. Accordingly, the

marks’ strength is not really probative of confusion here,

whereas it would be if defendant were passing off its goods

under a similar mark. 

We find that all of the other Lapp factors, while perhaps

not appropriate for analysis in this particular case, could be

analyzed in future nominative use cases, depending on the

factual situation. For example, in this case, looking at whether

the goods are marketed through the same channels or advertised

in the same media would be a misleading indicator in

determining the true likelihood of confusion. It would be of

little relevance in this case whether LT marketed its services

through the same channels as CCE because LT is not attempting

to use CCE’s marks to refer to LT’s own services, but rather is

using the marks to refer to CCE’s services. Therefore, it would

almost be expected that LT and most other defendants in a

nominative use case would market themselves through a media

in which the marks to which they are referring would be easily

recognized and have meaning or relevance, namely channels

similar to those used by plaintiff. However, there may be certain

situations, such as that encountered in New Kids (where

newspapers used the New Kids’ mark to inquire of readers, for

a price, their feelings about the group), where the channels of
34

marketing are so dissimilar that evidence as to this factor could

mitigate against a finding of likelihood of confusion. Similarly,

in looking at whether the targets of the parties’ marketing efforts

are the same, one could expect a fair use defendant to be

reaching out to a group of consumers who are likely to

recognize the mark. The fact that LT markets its services to real

estate consumers makes sense. These are the very people who

are likely to recognize and appreciate CCE’s marks and be able

to evaluate the benefit that CCE’s purported association with LT

could bring to them in the search for a home. This is not likely

to confuse in the same way as would be the case if the defendant

is passing off plaintiff’s goods as its own or using a similar mark

to that of the plaintiff, but this factor should not be completely

eliminated from a district court’s arsenal in evaluating

likelihood of confusion in a nominative use case. 

In the context of the facts of the case before us, we will

turn our focus to those Lapp factors that appear most relevant in

assessing likely confusion. These include:

(1) the price of the goods and other factors indicative

of the care and attention expected of consumers

when making a purchase;

(2) the length of time the defendant has used the mark

without evidence of actual confusion;

(3) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark;

and

(4) the evidence of actual confusion.
35

In focusing on these factors, the court will be better able to

assess whether consumers are likely to be confused by the use

not because of its nominative nature, but rather because of the

manner in which the mark is being nominatively employed. Of

course the determination of which factors are relevant and

probative in a given factual setting should be made in the first

instance by the District Court, but here we provide our view on

this issue as guidance, lest this matter again should come before

a panel of this Court on the issue of whether the District Court

examined the appropriate factors. 

Viewed in the context of the present case, it is apparent

why these factors are appropriate: they analyze the likelihood

that a consumer will be confused as to the relationship or

affiliation between LT and CCE, the heart of the nominative fair

use situation. Focusing on the care and attention expected of

consumers when making a purchase or using a service allows

the court to understand the true risk that consumers may be

confused merely because of their own inattention. Moreover,

focusing on evidence of actual confusion (factors 2 and 4) will

allow the District Court to truly understand whether this is

merely a theoretical or hypothetical fear of the plaintiff or

whether there is real danger that consumers are likely to be

confused. 

Lastly, analyzing the intent of the defendant in using the

mark will allow the court to understand the defendant’s reason

for utilizing the mark in the manner that it did. That is, if the

court finds that the defendant made use of the plaintiff’s mark

with the very purpose of causing consumers to think the plaintiff

endorses or sponsors plaintiff’s good or service, then the

likelihood that consumers will be confused as to
We review a district court’s conclusion as to likelihood 5

of confusion for clear error. A&H Sportswear II, 237 F.3d 198,

237 (3d Cir. 2000).

36

endorsement/affiliation is greater. Whereas the traditional

“intent” prong looks at intent to adopt a similar mark, here the

key inquiry is whether the mark is being used so as to convey a

connection between the parties that may not exist.

We hold today that the burden of proving likelihood of

confusion, even in a nominative use case, should remain with

the plaintiff and that these four factors are the essence of the

inquiry, although others may prove useful in certain contexts.

Here, the District Court did place this burden on CCE, but the

District Court also analyzed certain Lapp factors that we have

concluded are inappropriate in the context of this nominative

fair use case. Further, its application of certain of the four

relevant factors was somewhat imprecise. 

We will remand for the District Court to inquire as to

whether confusion was likely in light of our clarification of

which factors are applicable in this case and the following

discussion of the way in which the four relevant factors should

be applied.5

Factor 1: The Price of the Goods and Other

Factors Indicative of the Care and Attention

Expected of Consumers When Making a

Purchase

The District Court noted that “we are talking about real

estate purchases which in reference to most consumers is the
37

most important purchase both at the time and, in most people’s

instances, in their entire lives.” (Trans. of Oral Opinion at

JA735.) The District Court was correct to acknowledge and

consider the importance of a real estate purchase to the average

consumer. One would expect that consumers going to LT

website’s “Find a Realtor” section would be very careful in

learning about the various realtors in LT’s network. The degree

of care weighs against a finding of likely confusion. 

Factor 2: The Length of Time the Defendant

has used the Mark without Evidence of Actual

Confusion

The District Court conflated this factor with the

defendant’s laches defense and, therefore, failed to weigh in

LT’s favor the fact that, according to the record, CCE’s marks

had been used for at least five years with little evidence of actual

consumer confusion.

Factor 3: The Intent of the Defendant in

Adopting the Mark

The District Court appears to have inferred improper

intent on the part of LT from its very use of CCE’s marks. This

finding was erroneous without further evidentiary support. The

relevant question in this context is not whether the defendant

intended to use the plaintiff’s mark, which it always has in a fair

use case, but whether it used the mark with the intent to confuse

the public as to the relationship between the defendant and the

plaintiff. Use of the mark alone is not sufficiently probative of
This principle emerges from our analogous holdings in 6

traditional trademark infringement cases, in which we have

noted that “a defendant’s mere intent to copy, without more, is

not sufficiently probative of the defendant’s success in causing

confusion to weigh such a finding in the plaintiff’s favor.”

A&H Sportswear II, 237 F.3d at 225-26. Rather, the plaintiff

should make some showing that the defendant adopted its mark

with the intent to confuse or deceive the public. Id.; see also

Checkpoint Sys. Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269

F.3d 270, 286 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that “a party’s intentional

use of another party’s mark to cause confusion” weighs in favor

of finding likelihood of confusion) (emphasis added).

The concurrence argues that our nominative fair use 7

defense is merely this same intent inquiry dressed in different

clothing. The tests for confusion and fairness are not

duplicative, however, because a plaintiff can also establish

38

such intent. The plaintiff must show that the defendant 6

intended the public to believe that the plaintiff endorsed or

somehow supported its products or services. 

There are myriad factors to which a plaintiff may point

to demonstrate that a defendant intended to confuse the public

as to its relationship with the plaintiff. For example, courts in

traditional trademark infringement cases have considered a

defendant’s persistence in adopting a mark despite being warned

of potential confusion, Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369

F.3d 700, 721 (3d Cir. 2004), and evidence of a defendant’s bad

faith, A&H Sportswear II, 237 F.3d at 226. On remand, the

District Court should inquire as to whether any analogous facts

or evidence of record are present here. If so, the Court may

weigh this in favor of a finding of likely confusion.7
likelihood of confusion through seven other Lapp factors

besides intent. It is the circumstance in which a court does not

find bad intent but does find confusion that a nominative fair use

defense will be most useful.

39

Factor 4: The Evidence of Actual Confusion.

In this case, CCE presented no evidence of actual

confusion before the District Court. In fact, as the District Court

noted, from the Court’s first meeting with the parties, they had

agreed that they would offer no evidence of actual confusion to

the Court. Therefore, this factor should clearly weigh in favor

of LT. 

We will remand the case to the District Court for proper

application of these factors. In determining whether confusion

is likely, as we noted in A&H Sportswear II, 237 F.3d 198, 215

(3d Cir. 2000), “different factors may be accorded different

weights depending on the particular factual setting.” If CCE is

able to meet its burden of showing likelihood of confusion on

remand, the burden of proof will then shift to LT to show that

the use is a nominative fair use.

C. The Affirmative Defense of Nominative Fair Use

Under the nominative fair use test adopted by the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a defendant must prove: (1)

that the product or service in question is one not readily

identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) that only so much

of the mark or marks is used as is reasonably necessary to
See, The New Kids on the Block v. Gannett Satellite 8

Information Network, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992);

Kareem Abdul-Jabar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th

Cir. 1996); Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.

2002); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th

Cir. 2002); Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th

Cir. 2002); Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036

(9th Cir. 2003); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape

Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004). 

40

identify the product or service; and (3) that the user did nothing

that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship

or endorsement by the trademark holder. New Kids on the

Block, 971 F.2d at 308. In the Ninth Circuit, if these elements

are proven, the use is “fair” and defendant will prevail. Further,

this nominative fair use test, as discussed above, replaces the

likelihood of confusion test in the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. We must decide the extent to which we should

adopt this test as our own, mindful that we will employ it as an

affirmative defense to be proven by defendant after likelihood

of confusion has been demonstrated by the plaintiff.

We are tempted to use the three-pronged Ninth Circuit

test outright, as it has withstood the test of time, has been

tinkered with in no less than seven opinions. Moreover, the 8

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the only Court of Appeals to

have specifically crafted its own test for nominative fair use.

Indeed, the Supreme Court decision in KP Permanent Make-Up

involved a reversal of the most recent Ninth Circuit opinion on

the issue of “fair use.” As prolific as the jurisprudence of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been in this area, the

Supreme Court’s rejection of its view of how the fair use

defense works in a classic fair use case emboldens us to examine
41

the elements of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ nominative

fair use test a bit more closely. 

In so doing, we conclude that the test as written suffers

from a lack of clarity. This is evident in the contortions that the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals itself has gone through in

applying it, the confusion that the District Court here

encountered in its application, and in our conviction that a

modified inquiry would aid in reaching the right result. We will

adjust the test to include a slightly different set of

considerations:

1. Is the use of plaintiff’s mark necessary to describe

(1) plaintiff’s product or service and (2) defendant’s product or

service?

2. Is only so much of the plaintiff’s mark used as is

necessary to describe plaintiff’s products or services?

3. Does the defendant’s conduct or language reflect the

true and accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s

products or services? 

The following discussion explains how these factors

should be applied.

1. First Prong

The first element of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’

test involved an inquiry only into the necessity of using

plaintiff’s trademark to describe plaintiff’s product. Here, the

District Court instead – probably mistakenly – examined the
42

necessity of the use of plaintiff’s trademark in order to describe

defendant’s product. See Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d

1139, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). The first prong of New Kids On

The Block is at best confusing and at worst incomplete. While

it should be asked whether plaintiff’s product needs to be

described by reference to its mark, should it not also be

examined whether defendant’s use of it, at all, is necessary to

accurately describe what defendant does or sells, or whether its

reference to plaintiff’s mark is actually gratuitous? The District

Court’s inquiry into the latter aspect was not called for under the

New Kids On The Block test, but it actually seems entirely

appropriate. 

The focus on the necessity of the mark in order for

defendant to describe plaintiff’s product makes sense in the

context of nominative fair use, where the plaintiff’s mark is

being used because it identifies the plaintiff’s product. We

further note that the court need not find that the use of the mark

is indispensable in order to find this factor fulfilled. For, as we

have stated before, “[t]he Lanham Act does not compel a

competitor to resort to second-best communication.” G.D.

Searle & Co., 715 F.2d 837 at 842. Furthermore, as the

Ninth Circuit has observed: 

it is often virtually impossible to

refer to a particular product for

purposes of comparison, criticism,

point of reference or any other such

purpose without using the mark.

For example, reference to a large

automobile manufacturer based in

Michigan would not differentiate
Although the test crafted by the Ninth Circuit Court of 9

Appeals did not include this aspect under the first prong, as

such, nonetheless, it does allude to it as part of the second

prong, as we discuss below.

43

among the Big Three; reference to

a large Japanese manufacturer of

home electronics would narrow the

field to a dozen or more companies.

Much useful social and commercial

discourse would be all but

impossible if speakers were under

threat of an infringement lawsuit

every time they made reference to a

person, company or product by

using its trademark.

New Kids on the Block, 971 F.2d 302 at 307. Therefore, the

court need only be satisfied that the identification by the

defendant of plaintiff’s product or service would be rendered

significantly more difficult without use of the mark. 

Additionally, we believe that it is important for a court to

understand how necessary the use of the mark is to the

identification of defendant’s product. That is, the more

dependent the ready identification of defendant’s product is on

the description of plaintiff’s product through the employment of

plaintiff’s mark, the more likely it is that the use is a fair one.9
44

In this case, the District Court looked at this test only in

regard to defendant’s product. On remand the Court should

additionally focus on whether requiring LT to describe plaintiff

CCE’s services without using its mark is a forced reversion to

second-best communications. Considerations such as the

simplicity of description and the likelihood that consumers will

understand a given reference to plaintiff’s services without use

of the mark are appropriate to this analysis. See Cairns, 292

F.3d at 1153.

2. Second Prong

Here again, the New Kids On The Block test focuses on

the “amount” of plaintiff’s mark that is used, asking whether

only so much is used as is necessary to describe plaintiff’s

product. That focus on limiting the quantum use of the

attributes of plaintiff’s marks’ is appropriate, for it is the use of

plaintiff’s marks that concerns us. Yet, the case law of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has expanded on this prong to

inquire, at this stage, about the defendant’s need to use of the

mark, stating:

[W]hat is ‘reasonably necessary to identify the plaintiff’s

product differs from case to case .... Where, as in the present

case, the description of the defendant’s product depends on the

description of the plaintiff’s product, more use of the plaintiff’s

trademark is ‘reasonably necessary to identify the plaintiff’s

product’ than in cases where the description of the defendant’s

product does not depend on the description of the plaintiff’s

product. 
45

Cairns, 292 F.3d at 1154. Since we have positioned the

assessment of the defendant’s need to use plaintiff’s mark as

part of the first inquiry, we eliminate the confusion inherent in

inquiring into “need” at the second step. Thus, under our

approach, the second prong tests only whether the quantum of

the plaintiff’s mark used by the defendant was appropriate. 

In analyzing this factor, the District Court essentially

predetermined the outcome of the second prong by its finding as

to the first prong. The District Court found that because the use

of CCE’s marks was not necessary to identify LT’s services as

a whole under the first prong, the use could not possibly be only

so much as was necessary. But the proper focus under this

prong is on whether only so much of plaintiff’s mark as is

reasonably necessary to identify plaintiff’s product or service

has been used by defendant. Consideration should be given at

this stage to the manner in which the mark is portrayed. For

example, did the defendant use plaintiff’s distinctive lettering

when using the plaintiff’s mark or did the defendant, as in this

case, simply use block letters to spell out plaintiffs’ names?

In his concurring opinion, Judge Fisher posits that both

Prongs One and Two of our modified nominative fair use test

are, and should be, subsumed in the likelihood of confusion

analysis. He suggests that the necessity of using the mark

(Prong 1) and the reasonableness of that use (Prong 2) are just

another way of examining the defendant’s intent in using the

mark. This is a mischaracterization of both the intent factor

under Lapp, as described above, and the first two prongs of the

nominative use defense we espouse. Even if it is found that a

defendant’s intent is improper and its use of a mark could cause

confusion, the defendant could conceivably prove that even its
46

potentially confusing use is fair because it is reasonably limited

and necessary under the first two prongs of our nominative fair

use test. These contours of fairness are not recognized by our

concurring colleague, but they are fundamental to the concept of

fair use according to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in KP

Permanent Make-Up.

3. Third Prong

The New Kids test at this stage asks whether the user did

anything that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest

sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. However,

we believe the appropriate question should be a bit broader:

does the defendant’s conduct or language reflect the true and

accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s products

or services? We believe that the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals’ focus on whether the user’s conduct implies

endorsement may not truly reflect whether the use is fair

because sometimes the plaintiff’s relationship with defendant

may be one of endorsement, but the nature of the endorsement

as reflected by defendant’s employment of plaintiff’s marks may

not be accurate. A defendant’s purposeful portrayal of

plaintiff’s endorsement of its product through defendant’s

conduct or language does not necessarily render the use unfair,

as long as the depiction of the endorsement is accurate. In

addition, our version suggests that we can consider the

defendant’s failure to state or explain some aspect of the

relationship, whereas the New Kids version focuses on

affirmative acts, i.e., what the defendant did to suggest

sponsorship. 
47

In this case, the District Court concluded that an ordinary

consumer would look at LT’s website and conclude that there

was some affiliation between LT and the enumerated

companies. Further, the Court inferred from the mere presence

of the marks an intent on the part of LT to convey endorsement

or affiliation. On remand, the District Court should specifically

determine in analyzing this prong whether the portrayal of the

relationship was accurate, and what more the defendant could

have done to prevent an improper inference regarding the

relationship. The mere presence or use of the mark does not

suggest unfairness under this prong. Here, LT added a

disclaimer, the significance of which the District Court

downplayed, stating that “LendingTree is not sponsored by or

affiliated with the parent franchisor companies of any of the

participating members of its network.” (Text from

www.LendingTree.com at JA687.) Far from unimportant, such

a disclaimer must be considered in determining whether the

alleged infringer accurately portrayed the relationship that

existed between plaintiff and defendant. See Playboy Enters.,

279 F.3d at 803 (finding that the fact that defendant’s website

included a clear disclaimer of any connection to plaintiff

satisfied this prong of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ test

for nominative fair use). Therefore, the District Court on

remand should look at the precise way in which what the

defendant said, or did not say, other than the mere presence of

the mark on the website, may have inaccurately implied

endorsement or sponsorship by CCE. The District Court should

consider whether the disclaimer was an affirmative action by LT

that effectively negated an inaccurate implication of sponsorship

or endorsement by CCE.
48

The Ninth Circuit’s test for nominative fair use does not

explicitly include accuracy within the analysis, but the Supreme

Court has recognized that “[a]ccuracy of course has to be a

consideration in assessing fair use.” KP Permanent Make-Up,

Inc., 125 S. Ct. at 551. In examining the conduct of the

defendant to determine whether the defendant has done anything

to affirmatively cause consumer confusion, it is only reasonable

to consider the precision with which the defendant has described

its relationship with plaintiff. In this case, the evaluation of

accuracy would necessarily include consideration of LT’s

characterization of the nature and extent of its relationship

with CCE and its agents. This would include the District

Court’s consideration of LT’s reference to its affiliation

with CCE brokers in general, rather than referencing each more

accurately by their “d/b/a/” title and whether this rendered the

use inaccurate or was somehow misleading as to any

endorsement or relationship.

V. Conclusion

In sum, we hold today that the Lapp test for likelihood of

confusion still has an important place in a trademark

infringement case in which the defendant asserts the nominative

fair use defense. In this case, the test should focus on the four

relevant factors: (1) the price of the goods and other factors

indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when

making a purchase; (2) the length of time the defendant has used

the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (3) the intent of

the defendant in adopting the mark; and (4) the evidence of

actual confusion. 
49

Once plaintiff has met its burden of proving that

confusion is likely, the burden then shifts to defendant to show

that its nominative use of plaintiff’s marks is nonetheless fair.

In this Circuit, we have today adopted a test for nominative fair

use in which a court will pose three questions: (1) Is the use of

the plaintiff’s mark necessary to describe both plaintiff’s

product or service and defendant’s product or service? (2) Is

only so much of the plaintiff’s mark used as is necessary to

describe plaintiff’s products or services? (3) Does the

defendant’s conduct or language reflect the true and accurate

relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s products or

services? If each of these questions can be answered in the

affirmative, the use will be considered a fair one, regardless of

whether likelihood of confusion exists. 

We adopt a bifurcated approach that tests for confusion

and fairness in separate inquiries in order to distribute the

burden of proof appropriately between the parties at each stage

of the analysis. The defendant has no burden to show fairness

until the plaintiff first shows confusion. Furthermore, by

properly treating nominative fair use as an affirmative defense,

our approach allows for the possibility that a district court could

find a certain level of confusion, but still ultimately determine

the use to be fair. By contrast, a unified likelihood of confusion

test would require a defendant to negate likelihood of confusion

by undercutting the Lapp factors. Because the Supreme Court

explicitly rejected such a proposition in KP Permanent MakeUp, we decline to adopt it.

We will therefore REVERSE the order of the District

Court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.
Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.

10

1983).

50

Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, et al. v. LendingTree, Inc.

No. 03-4700

FISHER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in

part.

As the majority correctly concludes, proper nominative

use is permissible use, leaving the critical question of how to

frame the nominative use analysis. I concur with the majority’s

“firm conviction that the burden of proving likelihood of

confusion should remain with the plaintiff in a trademark

infringement case.” Maj. Op. at 24. I also concur in its

conclusion that this Court’s Lapp factors, where relevant, must 10

be used in the analysis. I therefore join in the majority’s

judgment remanding the case for further proceedings.

I depart from majority, however, in its adoption of a

bifurcated analysis that looks first to a truncated Lapp-factor

test, followed by an affirmative defense of “nominative fair

use.” Despite professing a “firm conviction” that the burden of

proving likely confusion remains on plaintiffs, the majority

formulates an affirmative defense that shifts to defendant the

burden of negating confusion. In so doing, the majority flouts

binding caselaw holding that proper nominative use is use that

is not likely to confuse, and that a plaintiff alone bears the

burden of establishing likely confusion. Morever, to the extent

the majority places any burden on plaintiffs at all, it is so

watered-down that plaintiffs might prove likely confusion on

one Lapp factor alone. The majority’s bifurcated test is also
51

judicially unmanageable because it requires courts to address

identical factors on both sides of the equation.

Accordingly, I dissent. I first review nominative use

cases and conclude that precedent, binding and otherwise, shows

that the question of nominative use is a question of likely

confusion and not an affirmative defense. Second, I address the

majority’s bifurcated analysis, and conclude that it runs afoul of

the Lanham Act and binding precedent because it places on

defendant the burden of negating likely confusion. I also

conclude that the test is judicially unmanageable because it

requires courts to examine identical likelihood of confusion

factors on both sides of the analysis. Finally, I propose that in

nominative use cases, courts apply a modified likelihood of

confusion inquiry based on Lapp factors two through ten, with

the burden resting where it must, on plaintiffs. Because proper

nominative use is use that is not likely to confuse, it is the

majority’s “nominative fair use” test that is unfair, because it

places the burden where it should never be, on the defendant.

I.

Despite the majority’s desire to “clarify the proper

analysis,” Maj. Op. at 15, its approach significantly increases the

uncertainty and – to use a term appropriate to the present context

– confusion in this important area of the law. In light of this

uncertainty, and in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in KP

Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 125 S.

Ct. 542 (2004), that a defendant bears no burden to negate

confusion, it is vital to examine the nature of nominative use to

determine whether it is an affirmative defense, or instead an

established way to test for likelihood of confusion. Because it
52

is the latter, the burden lies with plaintiffs and a bifurcated

analysis is improper.

The majority, stating that the Ninth Circuit is the only

Court of Appeals to craft a test for nominative use, mildly

rewords that test and recasts it as an affirmative defense. As

discussed in the subsections below, this approach is

unprecedented, unwise, and impermissible. First, it is

unprecedented. The Ninth Circuit’s decisions make it clear that

the test is nothing more than a likelihood of confusion

substitute, making it an inappropriate foundation for an

affirmative defense. Second, it is unwise. Other Courts of

Appeals have exercised great skepticism towards the Ninth

Circuit’s test and none have adopted it outright, calling into

serious question the wisdom of using it as a analytic model.

Finally, the majority’s approach is impermissible. Binding

precedent from the Supreme Court and this Court requires that

nominative use be addressed through a likelihood of confusion

analysis and that the burden remain on plaintiffs.

A.

The erroneous major premise underlying the majority’s

conclusion is the assumption that nominative use must be

analyzed through an affirmative defense. This assumption

begins with the majority’s misuse of the test enunciated by the

Ninth Circuit in New Kids on the Block v. News America

Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). As stated by the

majority: “We must decide the extent to which we should adopt

[the Ninth Circuit’s] test as our own, mindful that we will

employ it as an affirmative defense to be proven by defendant

after likelihood of confusion has been demonstrated by the
Like our Court and other Courts of Appeals, the Ninth 11

Circuit uses a multi-factor test for likelihood of confusion that

looks to, inter alia, the similarity of the marks, strength of the

plaintiff’s mark, and other factors. See AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft

Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

53

plaintiff.” Maj. Op. at 40 (emphasis added). However, the

Ninth Circuit has made it crystal-clear that its test is a substitute

for its normal multi-factor likelihood of confusion test, to be

used in cases involving purported nominative use. The Ninth 11

Circuit has also made it clear that this test places on the

defendant the burden of proving no likelihood of confusion.

Because KP Permanent makes it clear that it is improper to place

a burden of proving nonconfusion on the defendant, the majority

grievously errs by treating the Ninth Circuit test as an

affirmative defense.

As noted by New Kids, classic statutory fair use applies

“where the defendant has used the plaintiff’s mark to describe

the defendant’s own product.” 971 F.2d at 308 (emphasis in

original). Thus, if BEST PRICE were used as a mark, third

parties might still fairly use “best price” in its original

descriptive sense to refer to their own goods or services, such as

“We offer the best price on breakfast cereal.” In contrast,

nominative use arises “where the defendant uses a trademark to

describe the plaintiff’s product, rather than its own.” New Kids,

971 F.2d at 308. In New Kids, one of the defendants, a

newspaper, had printed a poll saying “New Kids on the Block

are pop’s hottest group. Which of the five is your fave? Or are

they a turn off?” Id. at 304. Another defendant newspaper,

under a picture of one of the New Kids, asked, “Which of the
54

New Kids on the Block would you most like to move next

door?” Id. The Court held:

a commercial user is entitled to a nominative fair

use defense provided he meets the following three

requirements: First, the product or service in

question must be one not readily identifiable

without use of the trademark; second, only so

much of the mark or marks may be used as is

reasonably necessary to identify the product or

service; and third, the user must do nothing that

would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest

sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark

holder.

Id. at 308 (note omitted). The first requirement was met because

“[i]t is no more reasonably possible, however, to refer to the

New Kids as an entity than it is to refer to the Chicago Bulls,

Volkswagens or the Boston Marathon without using the

trademark.” Id. The second requirement was met because

defendants “do not use the New Kids’ distinctive logo or

anything else that isn’t needed to make the announcements

intelligible to readers.” Id. The third element was met as well

because “nothing in the announcements suggests joint

sponsorship or endorsement by the New Kids.” Id. In

particular, one of the ads asked “whether the New Kids might be

‘a turn off.’” Id. at 309.

In subsequent cases, the Ninth Circuit has emphasized

that the test is a substitute for the normal multi-factor likelihood

of confusion analysis – “nominative fair use analysis . . .

replaces the likelihood of customer confusion analysis.” Cairns
55

v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002)

(emphasis in original); see also KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v.

Lasting Impression I, Inc., 328 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“When analyzing nominative fair use, it is not necessary to

address likelihood of confusion because the nominative fair use

analysis replaces the likelihood of confusion analysis.”

(emphasis added)), rev’d on other gds., 125 S. Ct. 542 (2004).

Fueling the majority’s mistaken use of the Ninth Circuit’s

test as an affirmative defense is the fact that the Ninth Circuit

confusingly refers to its own test at times as a defense, such as

in New Kids where the Court called the test “a nominative fair

use defense.” 971 F.2d at 308. But it is clear that the Ninth

Circuit’s test is not an affirmative defense in the sense the

majority envisions, as a defense to be asserted once a plaintiff

has established a likelihood of confusion. This is because the

Ninth Circuit’s so-called “defense” is itself a likelihood of

confusion test. In Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, the Court

acknowledged charges of “‘confusion in the case law’” as to

whether “nominative fair use” was really a distinct defense or

instead “‘merely one type of use which is not likely to cause

confusion.’” 318 F.3d 900, 908-09 n.5 (9th Cir.) (quoting 2 J.

Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair

Competition § 11:47 (4th ed. 2001)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 824

(2003). In response, the Court admitted that its test replaced the

normal multi-factor likelihood-of-confusion analysis, with one

significant difference: it “shifts to the defendant the burden of

proving no likelihood of confusion.” Id. at 909 n.5.

Thus, it is clear that the Ninth Circuit treats its “defense”

as a substitute for testing likelihood of confusion. It is also clear

that it places the burden of negating confusion on the defendant,
56

which under KP Permanent, is now impermissible. In KP

Permanent, the Court held that a defendant at no time possesses

the burden of negating confusion, noting, inter alia, “the

incoherence of placing a burden to show nonconfusion on a

defendant,” 125 S. Ct. at 549, and that “it takes a long stretch to

claim that a defense of fair use entails any burden to negate

confusion.” Id. at 548. As the Supreme Court has made it clear

that the burden of showing likely confusion belongs to plaintiffs

alone, it is improper to twist the nominative use inquiry into an

affirmative defense.

B.

The majority suggests that refusing to adopt its approach

would be “largely out of sync with the existing jurisprudence on

fair use.” Maj. Op. at 25. But considering the majority’s

concessions that the Ninth Circuit “is the only Court of Appeals

to have specifically crafted its own test for nominative fair use,”

id. at 40, that “[f]ew other courts have spoken on the precise

issue,” id. at 14, and that there is a “paucity of the case law on

this subject from every [other] court” on nominative use, id. at

15-16, the majority cannot point to a set of existing

jurisprudence from which to stray.

If anything, to the extent there is discernable

jurisprudence regarding the Ninth Circuit’s approach, the trend

is heavily against adopting its test. The Sixth Circuit, faced with

the option of adopting the Ninth Circuit’s test, held “[t]his

circuit has never followed the nominative fair use analysis,

always having applied [our own multi-factor likelihood of

confusion] test. We are not inclined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s

analysis here.” PACCAR Inc. v. TeleScan Technologies,
Even the majority admits “it seems that only the 12

Second, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits have referenced the nominative

fair use defense by name and even on these occasions have done

so only to refer to what district courts had done with the issue or

to decline to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s test as a whole.” Maj.

Op. at 14.

57

L.L.C., 319 F.3d 243, 256 (6th Cir. 2003). The Fifth Circuit

applied the test only in part, declining to impose the first

element of the test. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Ltd., 155

F.3d 526, 546 n.13 (5th Cir. 1998) (refusing to adopt the first

element because it would always be satisfied in disputes like the

comparative advertising case before the Court, and declining to

opine on whether the requirement should be imposed outside the

comparative advertising context). Pebble Beach expressly

recognized the Ninth Circuit’s “defense” for what it was, a

likelihood of confusion test, stating that “[w]hile a claim that the

use was to identify the markholder’s goods or services is

analogous to the statutory fair-use defense, it is in actuality a

claim that the use is noninfringing and thus creates no

likelihood of confusion.” Id. at 545 (emphasis added).12

Other authorities have noted the deficiencies of the Ninth

Circuit’s approach. A District Court in Maryland has criticized

all three elements, noting that the first and third prongs are

nothing more than “a restatement of two basic principles of

trademark law,” first, that use of a mark “is not prohibited if the

use is intended merely to refer to the holder of the mark,” and

second, that such reference “is permissible provided it is not

likely to cause confusion.” Nat’l Federation of the Blind, Inc.

v. Loompanics Enterp., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 1232, 1241 (D. Md.

1996). Similarly, the second prong “appear[ed] to derive from
I recognize that the majority does not adopt the Ninth 13

Circuit test verbatim. However, the majority nevertheless errs

in treating itstest as an affirmative defense because that defense,

even as modified, analyzes nothing more than core issues of

likelihood of confusion, issues that are within the purview of

plaintiffs’ case.

58

a concern that confusion as to affiliation may result if the

defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark exceeds its legitimate

referential purpose.” Id. The test has been additionally and

properly criticized as “cloud[ing] the issue of who carries the

burden to prove likelihood of confusion.” Derek J. Westberg,

Note, New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.:

New Nominative Use Defense Increases the Likelihood of

Confusion Surrounding the Fair Use Defense to Trademark

Infringement, 24 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 685, 709 (1994). The

author notes that the third element requires “that the user must

do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest

sponsorship or endorsement of the trademark holder,” but wryly

notes that this inquiry “must be satisfied as part of the plaintiff’s

prima facie case of infringement.” Id. at 705. I agree, and more

importantly, so does the Supreme Court.13

C.

The irony of the majority’s well-intended but erroneous

“nominative fair use” defense is that the majority felt the need

to craft a defense in the first place. Binding caselaw from the

Supreme Court and this Court have analyzed nominative use

cases without resorting to a separate test and without placing the

burden of negating confusion on defendants. I do not see how

the majority’s approach can be reconciled with these cases.
59

In Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, the Supreme Court

addressed a case involving what we would today refer to as

nominative use. 264 U.S. 359 (1924). The plaintiff, owner of

the marks COTY and L’ORIGAN, sold perfume and powder.

The defendant bought genuine COTY and L’ORIGAN products

and repackaged them. The plaintiff sought an injunction to

prevent the defendant from any use of the plaintiff’s marks on

the repackaged goods. The District Court had permitted the

defendant to sell the plaintiff’s repackaged goods, with a

disclaimer saying that defendant was not connected with

plaintiff and that the perfume and powder were respectively

“independently rebottled” and “independently compounded,”

with every word in “letters of the same size, color, type, and

general distinctiveness.” Id. at 367. Writing for the Court,

Justice Holmes held that “[w]hen the mark is used in a way that

does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word

as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo.” Id.

at 368. Prestonettes is clearly a nominative use case, and the

Supreme Court did not treat the use as one that had to be

justified by the defendant.

The majority seems to dismiss Prestonettes on the basis

that it is not a new case. See Maj. Op. at 27 n.4. I am not aware

of any rule permitting us to disregard Supreme Court precedent

simply because it is not as fresh as the Sunday paper. The

majority fails to persuade that Prestonettes is anything other than

a paradigm nominative use case. Indeed, even the Ninth Circuit,

when formulating its nominative use test in New Kids, cited,

quoted, and relied on Prestonettes when defining the nature of

nominative use:
60

[W]e may generalize a class of cases where the

use of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize

on consumer confusion or to appropriate the

cachet of one product for a different one. Such

nominative use of a mark—where the only word

reasonably available to describe a particular thing

is pressed into service—lies outside the strictures

of trademark law: Because it does not implicate

the source-identification function that is the

purpose of trademark, it does not constitute unfair

competition; such use is fair because it does not

imply sponsorship or endorsement by the

trademark holder. “When the mark is used in a

way that does not deceive the public we see no

such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being

used to tell the truth.” Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty,

264 U.S. 359, 368, 44 S. Ct. 350, 351, 68 L.Ed.

731 (1924) (Holmes, J.).

971 F.2d at 307-08 (emphasis in original).

In any case, we need not turn to the Ninth Circuit, nor

rely solely on older precedent, to find more recent binding

nominative use cases. This Court faced a nominative use

dispute in G.D. Searle & Co. v. Hudson Pharmaceutical Corp.,

715 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1983). In that case, the defendant used

the plaintiff’s METAMUCIL mark to truthfully state that its

product was “Equivalent to METAMUCIL.” Id. at 838. The

District Court enjoined the defendant from making conspicuous

use of the mark but otherwise permitted truthful use of the mark.

On appeal, we affirmed that defendant could truthfully use the

mark. Relying on Prestonettes, we concluded that “whether one
In addition, we affirmed the limited injunction, which 14

enjoined defendant from setting the mark apart in larger or

differently colored type, and required it to use “®” and use the

disclaimer “a product of G.D. Searle, not a Hudson product.”

Id. at 839, 843.

61

is entitled to refer to a competitor’s trademark depends not on

where the reference appears, but on whether the reference is

truthful.” Id. at 843 (discussing and quoting Prestonettes, 264

U.S. at 368). We further held that such use was permissible “so

long as it does not contain misrepresentations or create a

reasonable likelihood that purchasers will be confused as to the

source, identity, or sponsorship of the advertiser’s product.” Id.

at 841 (quotes omitted, emphasis added).14

Three things are obvious in Searle. First, we had no

doubt that Prestonettes was the controlling case for the disputed

use, a use that modern parlance deems “nominative use.” See

id. at 843 & n.13 (quoting Prestonettes, 264 U.S. at 368).

Second, we treated the question before us solely as whether the

use was likely to confuse. “‘[C]ollateral and truthful references

to the trademark of another are permissible as long as the

“unauthorized” reference does not cause confusion as to the

source of the product advertised.’” Id. at 841 n.9 (quoting

Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. v. Clark, 80 U.S. (13 Wall)

311, 327 (1872)) (emphasis added). Third, notably missing

from Searle was any suggestion that the defendant bore any

burden of satisfying an affirmative defense. Instead, the

question was whether the conduct would “create a reasonable

likelihood that purchasers will be confused as to the source,
Notably, in Pebble Beach, where the Fifth Circuit 15

declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s test verbatim, the Court

cited Searle as support for the proposition that “[t]his right to

use a mark to identify the markholder’s products--a nominative

use--however, is limited in that the use cannot be one that

creates a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship,

affiliation, or approval.” 155 F.3d at 546 (citing, inter alia,

Searle, 715 F.2d at 842) (emphasis added). Unlike the majority,

the Fifth Circuit clearly understood Searle to be a nominative

use case and that the issue was whether the use created a

likelihood of confusion.

The majority strangely complains that neither 16

Prestonettes nor Searle contain any “reference to ‘fair use,’ let

alone nominative fair use.’” Maj. Op. at 27-28 n.4. Of course

they don’t, because both cases treat the analysis as one of likely

confusion, not as an affirmative defense. And to state the

obvious, neither case was decided before the Ninth Circuit

coined the phrase “nominative use.” The majority’s approach

has the impermissible effect of attempting to overrule Searle,

which can only be done by the en banc Court.

62

identity, or sponsorship of the advertiser’s product.” Id. at 841

(emphasis added, internal quotes omitted).15

Like Prestonettes, Searle is a paradigm nominative use

case. The mere fact that these decisions did not use the term

“nominative use” when they were decided does not make them

any less binding. Both cases make it clear that nominative use

is nothing more than a likelihood of confusion inquiry, and

neither places upon a defendant the burden of negating

confusion or of putting forth an affirmative defense.16
63

II.

This section examines the inner workings of the

majority’s bifurcated test. Subsection II.A shows that the

majority’s approach permits plaintiffs to establish likely

confusion on as little as on Lapp factor, and improperly shifts to

defendant the burden of negating confusion. Subsection II.B

shows that the majority’s approach is judicially unmanageable

because it requires courts to consider identical likelihood of

confusion factors on both sides of the analysis. Subsection II.C

shows that the majority’s approach stems from a mistaken

conflation of the statutory defense of descriptive fair use, which

asks whether a defendant has used a mark in its primary

descriptive sense, with nominative use, which simply asks if a

defendant has created a likelihood of confusion.

A.

The majority’s approach whittles down this Court’s tenfactor Lapp test beyond recognition, permitting plaintiffs to

show likely confusion on as little as one factor. The effect of

this is to shift to defendant the burden of negating confusion. I

will start by outlining the majority’s proposed order of analysis.

Although the majority concedes that eight of the ten Lapp

factors can be relevant in nominative use cases, it limits

extended discussion to these four factors:

1. the price of the goods and other factors

indicative of the care and attention

expected of consumers when making a

purchase;
Because nominative use defendants use a plaintiff’s 17

mark rather than adopt it, the more accurate phrasing would be

“the intent of the defendant in using the mark.” I have followed

this approach in Section III, infra.

To be clear, the panel is unanimous in holding that in an 18

appropriate case, all but the first two Lapp factors may be

relevant to the nominative use analysis. See Maj. Op. at 33-35.

Moreover, although the majority focuses on only four of the

factors, id. at 34, 48, it at no point suggests that those factors

constitute the sole set of factors for nominative use analysis;

instead, it notes that the analysis will “include” those four

factors. See Maj. Op. at 34. Though the majority expresses

doubt regarding the weight of the last four Lapp factors to this

particular dispute, id. at 33, at no point does it hold that the

District Court is prohibited from considering them. As it states:

“We find that all of the other Lapp factors, while perhaps not

appropriate for analysisin this particular case, could be analyzed

in future nominative use cases, depending on the factual

situation.” Id. at 33 (emphasis added). Apparently concluding

that the parties are actual or close competitors, the majority

appears to suggest that the last four factors will be of little

relevance in this case. Perhaps, but as the majority implicitly

64

2. the length of time the defendant has used

the mark without evidence of actual

confusion;

3. the intent of the defendant in adopting the

mark; and 17

4. the evidence of actual confusion.

Maj. Op. at 34.18
recognizes, the determination of the degree of dissimilarity and

its weight is for the District Court to determine in the first

instance.

Section III, infra, outlines how the eight relevant Lapp

factors, including the final four, should be analyzed in a

nominative use case, including this case. If the District Court

finds that the parties’ services, customers, advertising, and

markets are highly similar or identical – i.e., the more the parties

are competitors – such findings have no bearing under the last

four Lapp factors in establishing a likelihood of confusion.

Competitors often make nominative use for purposes of

“comparison, criticism, [or a] point of reference.” New Kids,

971 F.2d at 306; see also Searle, 715 F.2d at 841 (competitor

selling laxatives described as “Equivalent to METAMUCIL”).

In nominative use cases, focusing on the parties’ status as

competitors would lead to false findings that all nominative uses

are confusing; accordingly, the parties’ possible status as

competitors has little to no bearing on establishing a likelihood

of confusion, and other factors must be addressed to analyze

likelihood of confusion.

But when the parties are not competitors, the last four

Lapp factors may become relevant in cutting against a

likelihood of confusion in the nominative use context. The more

the parties’ services, customers, advertising, or markets diverge,

the more they reduce the likelihood of confusion. This is

because differently targeted consumers may see the marks in

different contexts, through different advertising, and in relation

to different goods or services. These differences may counsel

against a likelihood of confusion.

65

If likely confusion is shown by plaintiffs – which as

discussed below, might be shown on one Lapp factor alone –

then the majority would require defendant to satisfy its

“nominative fair use” defense. As mildly reworded from the
66

Ninth Circuit’s test, the majority would require defendant to

show:

1. Is the use of plaintiff’s mark necessary to

describe (1) plaintiff’s product or service

and (2) defendant’s product or service?

2. Is only so much of the plaintiff’s mark

used as is necessary to describe plaintiff’s

products or services?

3. Does the defendant’s conduct or language

reflect the true and accurate relationship

between plaintiff and defendant’s products

or services?

Maj. Op. at 41.

I will first consider the majority’s bare-bones Lapp test.

Regarding the first factor – the price of the goods and other

factors indicative of the care and attention expected of

consumers when making a purchase – the District Court had

little to say, noting that the issue was “a little difficult” and

concluding that real estate purchases are the most important

purchases at the time and perhaps in people’s lives. Although

the District Court’s opinion is not clear, it appears that the Court

either found that the factor was neutral or pointed somewhat

towards defendant.

The second and fourth factors – looking to the absence or

presence of actual confusion – do not assist plaintiffs in this case

because they stipulated that they would not rely on evidence of
Although proof of actual confusion is not required, the 19

more such evidence there is, the greater the likelihood of

confusion. Versa Products Co., Inc. v. Bifold Co. (Mfg.) Ltd.,

50 F.3d 189, 205 (3d Cir. 1995). Conversely, a lack of actual

confusion evidence does not raise an inference of nonconfusion

“when the particular circumstances [do not] indicate such

evidence should have been available.” Id. (alteration in original,

quote marks deleted). But “[i]f a defendant’s product has been

sold for an appreciable period of time without evidence of actual

confusion, one can infer that continued marketing will not lead

to consumer confusion in the future.” Id.

67

actual confusion for these proceedings. This is unsurprising

because actual confusion evidence is in many cases unavailable

and is not required to find likely confusion.19

This leaves only one factor, intent. In this regard, the

majority holds that “if the court finds that the defendant made

use of the plaintiff’s mark with the very purpose of causing

consumers to think the plaintiff endorses or sponsors plaintiff’s

good or service, then the likelihood that consumers will be

confused as to endorsement/affiliation is greater.” Maj. Op. at

35-36. Accordingly, holds the majority, “the key inquiry is

whether the mark is being used so as to convey a connection

between the parties that may not exist.” Id. at 36. I agree with

the majority that the intent inquiry is important in nominative

use cases. Indeed, if the plaintiffs in this appeal are to show

likely confusion at all, they will have to prove it through this

factor. And considering the parties’ serious dispute over the

veracity and context of the defendant’s use of the plaintiffs’

marks, I have no doubt that on remand that the intent factor will

be the locus of contention.
68

But the majority is unclear as to what factors the District

Court might look in proving intent. It correctly notes that mere

“[u]se of the mark alone is not sufficiently probative of such

intent.” Maj. Op. at 37-38. This makes sense because the mere

existence of nominative use, without more, lacks probative

value as to whether the use was made with the intent to confuse.

But the majority provides little guidance on what might serve as

affirmative proof of intent in a nominative use case, noting

unhelpfully that the District Court should consider whether

defendant “used the mark with the intent to confuse the public

as to the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff.”

Id. at 37 (emphasis in original). But that admonition merely

restates the original inquiry, i.e., what evidence proves bad

intent?

The majority’s terse discussion of the intent factor begs

clarification of the kind of proof that would show intent to

confuse in a nominative use case. Fortunately, such clarification

is not difficult to find in the majority’s opinion, although its

location is troubling. One might look to the purpose of a

defendant’s use, which would be probative of whether the use

was made in good faith or instead with the intent to confuse.

One might look to the prominence of the use; if defendant used

the mark in too-large or stylized form, that may show an intent

to use more than is necessary, and again show an intent to

confuse. One might also look to the truthfulness of the use: if

the use was truthful, that would suggest a lack of intent to

confuse; conversely, misleading or untruthful uses of plaintiffs’

marks may be probative of an intent to confuse.

If the above characterization sounds familiar, it should.

Each and every one of the majority’s “nominative fair use”
I further object to the first prong of the “nominative fair 20

use” defense because of its conjunctive requirement that a

plaintiff’s mark be used to describe both plaintiff and defendant.

Although “nominative” use requires that the mark be used at a

minimum to refer to plaintiff, proper nominative use may or may

not also use a plaintiff’s mark to refer to the defendant’s goods

or services. Nominative use may occur “where the defendant

uses a trademark to describe the plaintiff’s product, rather than

its own.” New Kids, 971 F.2d at 308. Sometimes the use of the

mark may be, as noted in New Kids, merely for “comparison,

criticism, [or a] point of reference.” Id. at 306. In any case, I

would note that even under the majority’s phrasing, “necessary”

under the first prong does not mean “indispensable” – “the court

need not find that the use of the mark is indispensable in order

to find this factor fulfilled.” Maj. Op. at 42.

Another troubling problem that may arise from the first

prong’s conjunctive phrasing is that the majority may have

unintentionally foreordained the outcome of these proceedings

through its passing statement that “[defendant] is not attempting

to use [plaintiffs’] marks to refer to [defendant’s] own services,

but rather is using the marks to refer to [plaintiffs’] services.”

Maj. Op. at 33. The majority appears to suggest that defendant

69

prongs is nothing more than an inquiry into the likelihood of

confusion, specifically, whether the use is with the intent to

confuse due to a presence or lack of good-faith purpose,

prominence, and truthfulness. The majority’s first “nominative

fair use” prong looks to purpose and asks: “Is the use of

plaintiff’s mark necessary to describe (1) plaintiff’s product or

service and (2) defendant’s product or service?” This prong

asks why defendant is using the mark, i.e., its purpose in using

it. By the majority’s formulation, if it is necessary for defendant

to use the mark to describe both the plaintiffs’ and its own

services, then such use may be fair. But the reason for any 20
did not use the marks to refer to itself. I will emphasize that this

determination is not for this Court to make and should be made

by the District Court upon remand.

The majority is also unclear regarding the phrasing of 21

the second prong, which asks “[i]s only so much of the

plaintiff’s mark used as is necessary to describe plaintiff’s

products or services?” Maj. Op. at 41 (emphasis added). Later

in the opinion, the majority states “the proper focus under this

prong is on whether only so much of plaintiff’s mark as is

reasonably necessary to identify plaintiff’s product or service

has been used by defendant.” Id. at 45 (emphasis on

“reasonably” added). There may be worlds of difference

between what is “necessary” and what is “reasonably

necessary.” Although I read the majority’s second statement as

70

“fairness” would be because the use was made with good intent,

a paradigm likelihood of confusion inquiry, and one that falls

within the normal Lapp analysis.

The second inquiry suffers the same infirmity. It asks,

“Is only so much of the plaintiff’s mark used as is necessary to

describe plaintiff’s products or services?” This inquiry looks to

the prominence of the use, asking if the defendant “took too

much,” i.e., whether it used bigger, bolder type or a logo when

plain type might have sufficed. And why is this relevant? The

answer is clear: the willful overuse of plaintiffs’ marks may

evidence bad-faith intent and is more likely to confuse. Indeed,

Searle itself affirmed an injunction that enjoined the defendant

from setting the mark apart in larger or differently colored type,

and required it to use “®” and a disclaimer. See 715 F.2d at

839, 843. As such, the majority’s prominence inquiry again is

nothing more than part of the Lapp analysis.21
clarification of the meaning of “necessary,” the majority is not

clear on this important point.

71

Like the first two prongs, the majority’s third prong is

again nothing more than a likelihood of confusion inquiry. It

asks, “Does the defendant’s conduct or language reflect the true

and accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s

products or services?” By its own terms, the third prong looks

to the truthfulness of the use of the mark and the defendant’s

conduct in describing the relationship between the parties and

their goods/services. But this truthfulness inquiry is identical to

the statutory test of infringement under Lanham Act § 32(1)(a),

which asks whether the use is “likely to cause confusion, or to

cause mistake, or to deceive.” Lanham Act § 32(1)(a), 15

U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, Section

43(a)(1)(A) asks whether the use is “likely to cause confusion,

or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,

connection, or association of such person with another person.”

Id. § 43(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

By its plain language, the Lanham Act looks to the truthfulness

of the parties’ affiliation as crucial parts of the infringement

analysis. In other words, truthfulness is a part of the likelihood

of confusion analysis, and the majority’s formulation to the

contrary is irreconcilable with the statute.

Moreover, the majority’s third fair use prong is

substantively identical to its own “intent” Lapp factor. The

majority’s third fair use prong asks whether “the defendant’s

conduct or language reflect[s] the true and accurate relationship

between plaintiff and defendant’s products or services.” Maj.

Op. at 41 (emphasis added). This inquiry is identical to the

majority’s intent test under Lapp, which states “the key inquiry
The identity of the Lapp analysis and the affirmative 22

defense is further underscored by the majority’s additional

descriptions of the Lapp “intent” inquiry: whether “the

defendant made use of the plaintiff’s mark with the very purpose

of causing consumers to think the plaintiff endorses or sponsors

plaintiff’s good or service,” Maj. Op. at 35 (emphasis added),

and whether defendant “used the mark with the intent to confuse

the public as to the relationship between the defendant and the

plaintiff.” Id. at 37 (emphasis in original).

Just like the majority, the Ninth Circuit’s first two 23

“nominative fair use” prongs looks to purpose and prominence.

The Ninth Circuit’s third prong embraces truthfulness and more,

unabashedly requiring that “the user must do nothing that would,

in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or

endorsement by the trademark holder.” New Kids, 971 F.2d at

308. Try as it might to dress up the Ninth Circuit’s test in new

clothes, the test was and remains an inquiry into likelihood of

confusion, and the majority repeats the Ninth Circuit’s error of

placing the burden of negating confusion onto the defendant.

72

is whether the mark is being used so as to convey a connection

between the parties that may not exist.” Id. at 36 (emphasis

added). Whether one calls uses the words “connection” or

“relationship,” it is obvious that the majority’s third fair use

prong and its Lapp intent inquiry are identical. As the majority 22

places identical likelihood of confusion factors on both sides of

the equation, there can be no doubt that the majority expects

defendant to prove nonconfusion.

In sum, the “nominative fair use” defense is nothing more

than a venture into Lapp territory, namely, intent as shown

through the defendant’s purpose, prominence, and truthfulness

in connection with plaintiffs’ marks. Although it is troubling 23
Ironically, the majority criticizes the District Court in 24

Liquid Glass Enterprises, Inc. v. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, 8

F. Supp. 2d 398 (D.N.J. 1998), suggesting that the Court

“conflated the [New Kids] test with the plaintiff’s burden of

proving likelihood of confusion.” Maj. Op. at 15. Yet the

majority’s test stands guilty of the same accusation that it aims

at Liquid Glass.

73

that the majority would permit plaintiffs to establish likely

confusion based on one Lapp factor alone, it is even more

disturbing that the majority would require the defendant to

dispel that finding through an affirmative defense looking to the

same likelihood of confusion considerations.24

B.

Not only does the majority’s test run afoul of KP

Permanent and the Lanham Act by placing upon defendant a

burden of negating confusion, but it is also judicially

unmanageable. On remand, the District Court will be required

to consider the purpose, prominence, and truthfulness of the

defendant’s conduct as part of the plaintiffs’ likelihood of

confusion case. It will also be required to look to the same

factors when entertaining the defendant’s affirmative defense.

This makes no sense. The majority points to no meaningful

distinctions between the kinds of “intent” that might be relevant

to likelihood of confusion, and those which might be relevant to

the affirmative defense. This is because they are identical. I

respectfully submit that District Courts will not be able to make

heads or tails of how to conduct the analysis.
Trying to find some use for its affirmative defense, the 25

majority argues that “[i]t is the circumstance in which a court

does not find bad intent but does find confusion that a

nominative fair use defense will be most useful.” Maj. Op. at

38-39 n.7 (some emphasis added). Ironically, such a use would

be almost the only circumstance where a nominative fair use

defense would even theoretically be available. If likelihood of

confusion exists due to bad intent, the defense will be

unavailable because the intent is bad. If likelihood of confusion

doesn’t exist, then the defense won’t needed. This leaves the

circumstance noted by the majority: if likelihood of confusion

is somehow shown despite a lack of bad intent, defendant can

point to its good intent to prevail. But considering that a key

inquiry in a nominative use case is why the defendant has used

the plaintiff’s mark (purpose) and how it has been used

(prominence and truthfulness), it is hard to imagine a case where

74

The practical effect of the majority’s bifurcated analysis

is that the nominative fair use defense will almost always be

available only in cases where it is unneeded. Where a court

finds the use to be made with the intent to confuse, then a

finding of likelihood of confusion will often follow. According

to the majority, in such a case, a defendant could then assert

nominative fair use. However, such a defense would be hollow

indeed, because the entire “nominative fair use” defense asks

whether the use was made with the intent to confuse. Thus, a

defendant found to have caused likely confusion due to

illegitimate purpose, overly prominent use, or untruthfulness

will be unable to assert a successful “nominative fair use”

defense. Conversely, in cases where the alleged nominative use

is made with good-faith purpose, is not overly prominent, and is

truthful, then a plaintiff will likely fail in proving its case of

likely confusion. In that case, the defense will be unneeded.25
necessary, non-prominent, and truthful use would be likely to

confuse.

Such a finding under the facts of this case would appear

to require highly unsophisticated consumers and an abundance

of actual confusion evidence. But this hypothetical possibility

– notably, circumstances not present in this case, possibly

rendering the majority’s approach as nothing more than dicta –

does not warrant the majority’s invention of an affirmative

defense that duplicates likelihood of confusion intent inquiries

and places upon defendant an affirmative burden of showing

good faith. In any case, the majority’s unlikely scenario of

likely confusion despite good faith may not warrant a complete

bar on such use, and under appropriate circumstances, may merit

at most a constrained remedy that continues to permit such

truthful use, such as ordering clarifying language or a

disclaimer, as happened in Searle. Cf. 715 F.2d at 839, 843.

75

The result will certainly be that the nominative fair use

defense, as formulated by the majority, will remain unavailable

in many of the cases where it is needed due to a bad-faith intent

to confuse. The Supreme Court frowned heavily on this

absurdity in KP Permanent where it held, “‘[I]t defies logic to

argue that a defense may not be asserted in the only situation

where it even becomes relevant.’” 125 S. Ct. at 549 (quoting

Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp., 110 F.3d 234, 243 (4th Cir.

1997)). The Court further noted that “it would make no sense

to give the defendant a defense of showing affirmatively that the

plaintiff cannot succeed in proving some element (like

confusion).” Id. Yet this is exactly what the majority has done.
Lanham Act § 32(1)(a) states that “[a]ny person who 26

shall, without the consent of the registrant--(a) use in commerce

any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a

registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale,

distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in

connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or

to cause mistake, or to deceive . . . shall be liable in a civil

action by the registrant . . . .” Lanham Act § 32(1)(a), 15 U.S.C.

§ 1114(1)(a). Similarly, Section 43(a)(1)(A) asks whether the

use is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to

deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such

person with another person.” Id. § 43(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. §

1125(a)(1)(A). Compare this language to the majority’s

affirmative “nominative fair use” defense – which asks whether

“defendant’s conduct or language reflect[s] the true and

accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s products

76

C.

The majority’s bifurcated analysis appears to arise from

a failure to recognize that KP Permanent addresses several

issues, only the first of which is applicable to this case, namely,

the Supreme Court’s holding that a defendant bears no burden

of negating confusion. KP Permanent’s second holding

concerns matters peculiar to the statutory descriptive fair use

test, a test with no bearing in the present context.

The first issue in KP Permanent, and the one that controls

the outcome of this case, regards which party bears the burden

of demonstrating a likelihood of confusion. As the majority

recognizes, KP Permanent clearly holds that this burden belongs

to a plaintiff alone. Nothing in the Lanham Act requires a

defendant to negate a likelihood of confusion. As held by the 26
or services.” Maj. Op. at 41 (emphasis added). It’s the same

inquiry, and it improperly places the burden of negating

confusion on defendant.

77

Supreme Court, the Act requires that the burden remain on

plaintiffs: in that case, the Court held the statute “places a

burden of proving likelihood of confusion (that is, infringement)

on the party charging infringement even when relying on an

incontestable registration.” KP Permanent, 125 S. Ct. at 548.

Thus, held the Court, “the burden of proving likelihood of

confusion rests with the plaintiff.” Id. at 550.

The Court further held that it would be incoherent to

place upon defendant the burden of showing nonconfusion:

[A] look at the typical course of litigation in an

infringement action points up the incoherence of

placing a burden to show nonconfusion on a

defendant. If a plaintiff succeeds in making out a

prima facie case of trademark infringement,

including the element of likelihood of consumer

confusion, the defendant may offer rebutting

evidence to undercut the force of the plaintiff’s

evidence on this (or any) element, or raise an

affirmative defense to bar relief even if the prima

facie case is sound, or do both. But it would

make no sense to give the defendant a defense of

showing affirmatively that the plaintiff cannot

succeed in proving some element (like

confusion); all the defendant needs to do is to

leave the factfinder unpersuaded that the plaintiff

has carried its own burden on that point. A
78

defendant has no need of a court’s true belief

when agnosticism will do.

Id. at 549. For the reasons noted above, I conclude that the

majority’s bifurcated analysis and the phrasing of its

“nominative fair use” defense violate this first and clear holding

of KP Permanent, by placing the burden of showing

nonconfusion on defendant.

A second issue in KP Permanent, in contrast, has no

bearing to this case. That issue was what role, if any, a finding

of likely confusion may play when a defendant asserts the

statutory affirmative defense of descriptive fair use under

Lanham Act § 33(b)(4). The statutory defense asks whether

“the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an

infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, . . . of a term or

device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith

only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their

geographic origin.” Lanham Act § 33(b)(4), 15 U.S.C.

§ 1115(b)(4). Unlike the present dispute, which asks whether

defendant created a likelihood of confusion by using the

plaintiffs’ marks to refer at least in part to plaintiffs, a

descriptive fair-use defense would ask whether a defendant may

use a trademark (e.g., “BEST PRICE”) in its primary descriptive

sense (e.g., “we offer the best price on breakfast cereal”). In the

latter case, a threshold inquiry and key distinguishing fact is that

defendant would allege that it is not using the plaintiff’s marks

to refer to plaintiff at all, but is instead using the mark in a

descriptive way without reference to the plaintiff.

In KP Permanent, the alleged infringer argued that it used

variations of the term “micro color” to refer to its goods in a
Underlying the case was a long-standing circuit split 27

over whether a finding of likely confusion foreclosed a statutory

descriptive fair use defense. See KP Permanent, 125 S. Ct. at

547 (collecting cases).

Descriptive fair use and nominative use “are quite 28

different from each other and bear little resemblance except that

both are types of non-infringing use.” 2 J. Thomas McCarthy,

79

descriptive way without reference to the trademark owner. The

question before the Court was whether a finding of likely

confusion would foreclose assertion of the statutory descriptive

fair use defense. The Court held that it would not, concluding 27

that “our holding that fair use can occur along with some degree

of confusion does not foreclose the relevance of the extent of

any likely consumer confusion in assessing whether a

defendant’s use is objectively fair.” 125 S. Ct. at 550.

Despite the majority’s suggestions to the contrary, the

Court’s second holding is not earth-shattering – the Court

merely held that even though a finding of likely confusion

would not foreclose assertion of the statutory descriptive fair use

defense, courts might nonetheless factor the extent of confusion

into determining whether the purportedly descriptive use was

not fair. In the context of descriptive fair use, the Court’s

statement makes sense because the extent of confusion might be

relevant to determining whether a the mark was “used fairly” or

“otherwise than as a mark.” Lanham Act § 33(b)(4), 15 U.S.C.

§ 1115(b)(4). But descriptive fair use and nominative use are

very different animals: in descriptive fair use, the key inquiry is

whether a plaintiff’s mark is being used in a descriptive sense,

but in nominative use cases, courts ask one question alone: is the

defendant’s use likely to confuse? Indeed, even while noting 28
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 11:45 (4th

ed. 2005). As stated by the Ninth Circuit in distinguishing

nominative use from descriptive (or classic) fair use:

The distinction between classic and nominative

fair use is important for two reasons: (1) classic

and nominative fair use are governed by different

analyses; and (2) the classic fair use analysis only

complementsthe likelihood of customer confusion

analysis set forth in Sleekcraft, whereas the

nominative fair use analysis replaces the

Sleekcraft analysis.

Cairns, 292 F.3d at 1150. In other words, descriptive fair use

looks beyond confusion considerations whereas nominative use

looks only to a likelihood of confusion.

80

that some cases had treated the extent of confusion as a relevant

consideration in descriptive fair use cases, the Supreme Court

immediately and unequivocally cautioned that “[c]ertainly one

cannot get out of [such cases] any defense burden to negate

[confusion] entirely.” 125 S. Ct. at 549.

It makes no sense to force the square peg of KP

Permanent’s second holding about descriptive fair use into the

round hole of nominative use. Nominative use is nothing more

than an inquiry into likely confusion. By reading KP Permanent

to permit a bifurcated analysis where confusion is the central

focus on each side, the majority reads KP Permanent to hold that

both: 1) defendant bears no burden of negating confusion, and

2) defendant bears a burden of negating confusion. Nor might

the majority justify its defense by characterizing it as an inquiry

into good faith. As stated by the Supreme Court, “Nor would it

make sense to provide an affirmative defense of no confusion

plus good faith, when merely rebutting the plaintiff’s case on
81

confusion would entitle the defendant to judgment, good faith

or not.” Id. Indeed, good faith is merely the flip side of bad

faith, and as discussed previously, the intent factor has always

remained part of the plaintiff’s case under Lapp.

The majority’s attempt to rely on KP Permanent in

support of its bifurcated analysis is further and finally belied by

the fact that the Court took pains to note that it was not

addressing nominative use. See id. at 546 n.3 (“Nor do we

address the Court of Appeals’s discussion of ‘nominative fair

use.’”). The majority’s transplantation of the Supreme Court’s

comments about descriptive fair use into the nominative use

context is no more effective than replacing a healthy human

heart with one from another species. In short, classic fair use is

a defense. Nominative use is not.

III.

Merely criticizing the majority’s approach would be

hollow commentary without providing in addition an outline on

how nominative use analysis can proceed in a fashion consistent

with the Lanham Act, KP Permanent, Prestonettes, Searle, and

this Court’s long-standing Lapp test. Needless to say, because

the nominative use analysis is an inquiry into the likelihood of

confusion, the burden must remain with plaintiffs, although – as

in any trademark infringement case – defendant remains free to

put on arguments and evidence to rebut those put forth by

plaintiffs. I start as I must with reference to our standard ten

factors, as phrased in our decision in A & H Sportswear, Inc. v.

Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc.:
82

(1) the degree of similarity between the

owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark;

(2) the strength of the owner’s mark;

(3) the price of the goods and other factors

indicative of the care and attention expected of

consumers when making a purchase;

(4) the length of time the defendant has used

the mark without evidence of actual confusion

arising;

(5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the

mark;

(6) the evidence of actual confusion;

(7) whether the goods, competing or not

competing, are marketed through the same

channels of trade and advertised through the same

media;

(8) the extent to which the targets of the

parties’ sales efforts are the same;

(9) the relationship of the goods in the minds

of consumers, whether because of the

near-identity of the products, the similarity of

function, or other factors;
This updated formulation post-dates Lapp and addresses 29

both competitive and non-competitive uses.

“When a defendant uses a trademark nominally, the 30

trademark will be identical to the plaintiff’s mark, at least in

terms of the words in question. Thus, application of the [normal

multi-factor] test, which focuses on the similarity of the mark

used by the plaintiff and the defendant, would lead to the

incorrect conclusion that virtually all nominative uses are

confusing.” Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796,

801 (9th Cir. 2002).

83

(10) other facts suggesting that the consuming

public might expect the prior owner to

manufacture both products, or expect the prior

owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s

market, or expect that the prior owner is likely to

expand into the defendant’s market.

237 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2000) (discussing Interpace Corp. v.

Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983)). The majority is 29

correct that the factors may be tailored to the circumstances:

“[n]ot all factors will be relevant in all cases,” and “different

factors may properly be accorded different weights depending

on the particular factual setting.” Id.

I agree with the majority that Lapp factors one and two

are unlikely to carry any weight in a nominative use case. In a

case where a defendant is using a plaintiff’s mark to refer to the

plaintiff, the use will always be identical. Moreover, it makes 30

little sense to give weight to factor two, the strength of the mark,

as nominative uses will be made with both weak and strong

marks.
84

The majority focuses in this case on only four of the ten

Lapp factors (factors three through six), but agrees that in some

cases, the remaining factors (seven through ten) might be

relevant. I believe it is important to explore circumstances

where Lapp factors seven through ten may be pertinent. In this

case, much of the parties’ services, customers, advertising, and

markets are similar and may be in some regards identical.

Although the degree of identity or similarity is for the District

Court to determine in the first instance, the majority correctly

concludes that to the extent the parties share identical services,

customers, advertising, and markets, such identity lacks value in

determining the likelihood of confusion. See Maj. Op. at 33 (“it

would almost be expected that [defendant] and most other

defendants in a nominative use case would market themselves

through a media in which the marks to which they are referring

would be easily recognized and have meaning or relevance,

namely channels similar to those used by plaintiff”). However,

to the extent that the parties’ services, customers, advertising,

and markets are different, factors seven through ten may counsel

against a likelihood of confusion. Compare this case to one

involving a newscaster. What if the hypothetical newscaster

used plaintiffs’ logos as part of a newscast about plaintiffs?

Regardless of First Amendment issues, the differences between

the parties’ services would themselves counsel against a

likelihood of confusion. Thus, as recognized by the majority,

factors seven through ten are not per se irrelevant, and the door

remains open to them in relevant cases.

In light of these considerations, I recommend that in

cases involving colorable nominative use – i.e., where a

defendant has used a plaintiff’s mark to refer at least in part to

the plaintiff – the District Court consider Lapp factors three
85

through ten, slightly reworded and renumbered one through

eight:

1. The price of the goods or services and other

factors indicative of the care and attention expected of

consumers when making a purchase. As noted by the majority,

this remains a relevant inquiry. The cheaper the goods or the

less sophisticated the consumers, the more likely that a use may

confuse. This factor will require careful attention by the District

Court on remand. People buying and selling homes might be

likely to take especial care in choosing an agent, but the use here

may also give rise to concerns under the “initial interest

confusion” doctrine. See Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point

Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 292 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding

initial interest confusion actionable under the Lanham Act); see

also Lamparello v. Falwell, – F.3d –, Nos. 04-2011, 04-2122,

2005 WL 2030729, at *6 (4th Cir. Aug. 24, 2005) (quoting

Checkpoint and noting limitations on initial interest doctrine

where use was for criticism or commentary rather than profit).

2. The length of time the defendant has used the

mark without evidence of actual confusion arising. “If a

defendant’s product has been sold for an appreciable period of

time without evidence of actual confusion, one can infer that

continued marketing will not lead to consumer confusion in the

future.” Versa Prods., 50 F.3d at 205. “The longer the

challenged product has been in use, the stronger this inference

will be.” Id.

3. The intent of the defendant in using the mark. As

noted by the majority, “the key inquiry is whether the mark is

being used so as to convey a connection between the parties that
But as noted, I cannot ascribe to the majority’s 31

conjunctive phrasing that would require that the use be

necessary to describe both a plaintiff’s product or service and a

defendant’s product or service. See supra note 11.

86

may not exist.” Maj. Op. at 36. Although I disagree with the

majority’s bifurcation and duplication of the intent inquiry, there

can be no doubt that this inquiry is crucial and may include, as

noted by the majority, “myriad” factors. See Maj. Op. at 38.

Thus, the District Court should inquire as to the nature of the

defendant’s conduct and the accuracy of its use of the plaintiffs’

marks (akin to the majority’s third “nominative fair use” prong).

These inquiries extend further to looking to the purpose of the

use (akin to the majority’s first “nominative fair use” prong),31

and to whether defendant “took too much” with an eye towards

creating consumer confusion (i.e., the second “nominative fair

use” prong), such as a competitor using a plaintiff’s mark in

logo form, larger type, or different colors, in a way designed to

draw attention above and beyond proper nominative use.

Indeed, this factor was expressly considered in Searle, where we

enjoined the defendant from setting the mark apart in larger or

differently colored type, and required it to use “®” and a

disclaimer. 715 F.2d at 839, 843.

4. The evidence of actual confusion. The “more

evidence of actual confusion that a plaintiff can muster, the

stronger the likelihood of confusion in the future, but lack of

evidence of actual confusion,” at least where the time period is

short or the circumstances do not indicate that such evidence

should have been available, “does not raise an inference that

there is no likelihood of confusion.” Versa Prods., 50 F.3d at

205. Here, plaintiffs concede for purposes of this motion that
87

there is no such evidence, which for present purposes weighs in

defendant’s favor.

5. Whether the goods or services, competing or not

competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and

advertised through the same media. Where the parties are

competitors and the channels of trade or media are identical, this

factor has no relevance because competitors by nature use

identical channels and media. However, to the extent that the

parties are not competitors, as in the case of the hypothetical

broadcaster, or the parties use differing channels of trade or

media, this factor lessens the likelihood of confusion because of

differences in the target audiences and the places where

consumers will see the marks used. In this case, defendant and

plaintiffs are not identical competitors but appear to compete in

some respects. They also appear to use websites geared towards

similar audiences. The extent that the parties are or are not

competitors, or do or do not have identical channels of trade or

media, should be determined by the District Court upon remand.

If identical, then this factor has no weight. If only slightly

different, the factor has some but little bearing in reducing the

likelihood of confusion. And the greater the differences, the

more weight the District Court should place on this factor.

6. The extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales

efforts are the same. The rationale behind factor six is similar

to that for factor five. In a nominative use case, the mere fact

that the parties target identical customers has no bearing. But to

the extent the targeted customers differ, that lessens the

likelihood of confusion. Upon remand, the District Court

should determine the extent to which the targeted customers are

identical or not.
88

7. The relationship of the goods or services in the

minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the

products or services, the similarity of function, or other factors.

The same rationale applies. The mere fact that the goods or

services are identical has no probative value because

competitors may oftentimes make otherwise nonconfusing

nominative use. But to the extent the goods or services differ,

that lessens the likelihood of confusion. Upon remand, the

District Court should determine the extent to which the parties’

services are similar or not.

8. Other facts suggesting that the consuming public

might expect the prior owner to provide both products or

services, or expect the prior owner to provide a product or

service in the defendant’s market, or expect that the prior owner

is likely to expand into the defendant’s market. This factor asks

whether consumers would expect plaintiffs to offer defendant’s

services, or offer services in defendant’s market, or to expand

into defendant’s market. The same rationale applies here as for

factors five, six, and seven; namely, to the extent that the

consuming public expects plaintiffs to offer defendant’s

services, to offer services in the defendant’s market, or to

expand into the defendant’s market, this factor has no bearing.

But the less the consuming public would expect such conduct

from plaintiffs, the more this factor cuts against a likelihood of

confusion. Upon remand, the District Court should consider this

factor as well.

IV.

The test outlined above best satisfies KP Permanent’s

requirement that plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing a
89

likelihood of confusion. It also satisfies the requirements of the

Lanham Act, Prestonettes, and Searle, which provide that

nominative use is use that is not likely to confuse. Unlike the

majority’s approach, this test is judicially manageable because

it does not bifurcate and duplicate the analysis.

The majority objects that it would be unfair to deprive a

defendant of a nominative fair use defense. This complaint

rings hollow: defining “fair use” in terms of nonconfusion does

not give the majority license to place on defendant’s shoulders

a burden that it should not bear. It is therefore the majority’s

formulation that is “unfair.”

Moreover, the majority is simply wrong that defendants

will have no way of undercutting a charge of infringement. As

the Supreme Court noted in KP Permanent in response to this

very objection, a defendant remains free to “offer rebutting

evidence to undercut the force of the plaintiff’s evidence on”

likelihood of confusion. KP Permanent, 125 S. Ct. at 549. As

the Supreme Court held, “all the defendant needs to do is to

leave the factfinder unpersuaded that the plaintiff has carried its

own burden on that point. A defendant has no need of a court’s

true belief when agnosticism will do.” Id.

V.

For the reasons discussed above, I cannot join in the

majority’s formulation of a bifurcated test because it runs afoul

of the Lanham Act, KP Permanent, Prestonettes, and Searle,

each of which make it clear that the burden in nominative use

cases remains with plaintiffs. Because the majority’s test

impermissibly places the burden of negating confusion on
90

defendant, and is in addition judicially unmanageable, I

respectfully dissent. I nevertheless join in the judgment

remanding the case for further proceedings.