Source: https://thelegaltaxi.com/Home/SRM_IntellectualPropertyLawSample
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:48:16+00:00

Document:
Lanham Act, California statutes and case law.
reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of 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 for the remedies hereinafter provided.
Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
A plaintiff bringing a claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) is not required to prove that he or she has a valid trademark. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's use in commerce of “any word,term....Combination thereof, or any false designation of origin…..misleading representation of fact” in connection with the defendant's goods or services “is likely to cause confusion, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval” of defendant's goods or services by the plaintiff. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1).A plaintiff is entitled to relief under an endorsement claim regardless of whether the plaintiff owns a trademark.
The test as to infringement against a trademark does not depend upon an exact similarity in every detail,but if the general appearance is such as to deceive a casual purchaser who exercises ordinary care in the selection of the article which he wishes to buy, its use may be enjoined [citation omitted] It is said: What degree of resemblance is necessary to constitute an infringement is incapable of exact definition, as applicable to all cases. All that courts of justice can do, in that regard, is to say thatno trader can adopt a trade-mark, so resembling that of another trader, as that ordinary purchasers, buying with ordinary caution are likely to be misled.
When the goods produced by the alleged infringer compete for sales with those of the trademark owner, infringement usually will be found if the marks are sufficiently similar that confusion can be expected. When the goods are related, but not competitive, several other factors are added to the calculus.
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 3411979.
8. The likelihood of expansion of the product lines.
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d at 348-349.
Considering the factors of likelihood of confusion, Acme can argue that defendant’s mark fringes on its mark because of the similarity in the name of the mark and the product marketed by the competitor (Gamma)is the same: biscuits.
(A) 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, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or . . . .
The term trade dress can be referred as to the 'total image of a product' and may include features such as size, shape, color, color combinations, texture or graphics.
The Lanham Act, in § 43(a), gives a producer a cause of action against any person who uses "any symbol or device … likely to cause confusion as to the origin of his or her goods." 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This provision protects not only words and symbols, but also "trade dress”, a category that includes the packaging and design of a product.
There is likelihood that the consuming public will confuse MUNCH-IN with client’s product.
Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17200 (2012), defines “unfair competition “it include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited. Its coverage is sweeping, embracing anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.
Acme may ask for injunctive relief under the unfair competition provision because unfair competition includes an unfair or fraudulent business practice, and either ground is sufficient to permit injunctive relief.
Liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition exists under California law when an appreciable number of reasonable buyers are likely to be confused by the similarity of the plaintiff's and defendant's marks. [Citation omitted] As explained by the court in Academy of Motion Picture Arts v. Creative House (9th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1446, 1457,the ultimate test under both federal and California law is whether the similarity between the two marks is likely to deceive or confuse the public.
Profits; damages and costs; attorney fees. When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section 43(a) or (d) [15 USCS § 1125(a) or (d)], or a willful violation under section 43(c) [15 USCS § 1125(c)], shall have been established in any civil action arising under this Act, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 29 and 32 [15 USCS §§ 1111, 1114], and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. The court shall assess such profits and damages or cause the same to be assessed under its direction.
In any action arising under this Act, in which a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section 43(a) [ 15 USC 1125(a)], or a willful violation under section 43(c) [ 15 USC 1125(c)], shall have been established, the court may order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of the defendant, bearing the registered mark or, in the case of a violation of section 43(a) [ 15 USC 1125(a)] or a willful violation under section 43(c) [ 15 USC 1125(c)], the word, term, name, symbol, device, combination thereof, designation, description, or representation that is the subject of the violation, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed.
The use of a trademark is the owner's way of preventing others from duping consumers into buying a product that they mistakenly believe is produced by the trademark owner. A trademark informs people that trademarked products come from the same source. The ultimate test is whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused by the similarity of the marks. Based on the statutes and case law, we believe that Acme has sufficient grounds to bring suit against the competitor Gamma for infringement of trademark and trade dress. Acme can ask for injunctive relief and the destruction of the infringing goods. If successful, it can also recover reasonable attorney fees.

References: § 1125
 § 1125
 v. 
 v. 
 § 43
 § 1125
 § 17200
 v. 
 § 1125
 § 1125