Source: http://openjurist.org/656/f2d/186/sun-fun-products-inc-v-suntan-research-and-development-inc
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 21:41:08
Document Index: 291758117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1114', '§ 82', '§ 729', '§ 82', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 82', '§ 82']

656 F2d 186 Sun-Fun Products Inc v. Suntan Research & Development Inc | OpenJurist
656 F. 2d 186 - Sun-Fun Products Inc v. Suntan Research & Development Inc Home
656 F2d 186 Sun-Fun Products Inc v. Suntan Research & Development Inc 656 F.2d 186
213 U.S.P.Q. 91
SUN-FUN PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.SUNTAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 79-2719.
At the close of Sun-Fun's evidence the district judge directed a verdict for SRD on the trademark claim. Relying on Armstrong Cork Co. v. World Carpets, Inc., 597 F.2d 496 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 932, 100 S.Ct. 277, 62 L.Ed.2d 190 (1979), he ruled that the two trademarks were so dissimilar that there was no likelihood of confusion. Defendant then presented evidence to rebut the remaining unfair competition claim, including the testimony of Hampton, which directly conflicted with that of Weisburg. At the close of defendant's evidence the district judge directed a verdict for defendant on that claim as well. He concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion in the trade dress of the two products because Beach Buff was sold primarily at pool decks where it was the only suntan preparation displayed, thus precluding any side-by-side comparison of the two products.
The governing standard in trademark infringement actions is "likelihood of confusion." 15 U.S.C. § 1114; Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston, 628 F.2d 500, 504 (5th Cir. 1980). Whether two marks are likely to be confused depends upon an amalgam of factors. Among these factors are "the type of trademark, the similarity of design, the similarity of the product, the identity of retail outlets and purchasers, the similarity of advertising media used, defendant's intent, and actual confusion." Exxon, 628 F.2d at 504. Other factors include previous contractual or business relations between the parties, 3 R. Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies § 82.2(b)(3) (3d ed. 1969), and the degree of care purchasers are likely to exercise when selecting products of the type sold by the parties, Armstrong Cork, 597 F.2d at 504 n.10; Restatement Torts § 729 (1938).
The district court's directed verdict was based upon only one of these factors, similarity of design. The district judge appears to have reasoned that the marks were so dissimilar in appearance that the other extrinsic factors were irrelevant. We disagree. The two marks must bear some threshold resemblance in order to trigger inquiry into extrinsic factors, but this threshold is considerably lower than the degree of similarity required where the plaintiff presents little or no evidence on extrinsic factors supporting infringement. This court routinely has evaluated factors other than degree of similarity in cases where the marks were found to be quite similar, e. g., Exxon, supra, and in cases where the marks were found to be distinguishable, e. g., Armstrong Cork, supra; Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 268, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). Evaluation of these other factors is necessary because it is difficult to assess degree of similarity in a vacuum:
The similarity of the two products is uncontested. Native Tan and Beach Buff are suntan preparations sold to the public in parallel product lines of oils and lotions designed to meet the needs of people with different tanning characteristics. On the other hand, the evidence with respect to identity of retail outlets and purchasers is mixed. The two products appeal to the same customers people who might loosely be termed "sun-worshippers." However, the retail outlets through which they are distributed are different. Beach Buff is sold largely from Hampton's poolside stands that do not offer competing suntan preparations. Native Tan is sold primarily through traditional commercial retail outlets. Before Beach Buff entered the market Native Tan was also sold at poolside stands owned by Hampton. This past supplier-distributor relationship between Sun-Fun and Hampton is also probative evidence of likelihood of confusion. See Frito-Lay, Inc. v. So Good Potato Chip Co., 540 F.2d 927 (8th Cir. 1976); Callman, § 82.2(b)(3).
Sun-Fun bases its unfair competition claim on 15 U.S.C. § 1125.7 The central inquiry here is "whether the defendant is passing off his goods or services as those of the plaintiff by virtue of substantial similarity between the two, leading to confusion on the part of potential customers." Boston Professional Hockey Association v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc., 510 F.2d 1004, 1010 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 868, 96 S.Ct. 132, 46 L.Ed.2d 98 (1975). The factors relevant to this inquiry are essentially the same as those relevant in determining trademark infringement, but the scope of inquiry into similarity of design is considerably broader, see id. The touchstone under § 1125 is not similarity of the registered mark but similarity in the overall trade dress of the products, see Callman, § 82.1(h).
Neither the parties nor the district court made any effort to determine what type of trademark Native Tan may be. Marks usually fall into one of four categories: arbitrary marks, descriptive marks, suggestive marks and generic terms, see Sun Banks v. Sun Federal Savings & Loan, 651 F.2d 311 at 315 (5th Cir. 1981). We will not assume the role of a jury and categorize the mark based upon our visual impression. It is sufficient for purposes of directed verdict review to observe that the Native Tan mark arguably has many of the indicia of a suggestive mark and is therefore entitled to protection. See id.; Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1184 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1516, 67 L.Ed.2d 816 (1981)
During trial, counsel for both parties spent considerable time eliciting witnesses' opinions concerning the likelihood of confusion between the marks. Such evidence has little, if any, probative value, see Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co., 163 U.S. 169, 178, 16 S.Ct. 1002, 1005, 41 L.Ed. 118, 122 (1896); Callman, supra, § 82.3(c)
SRD argues that plaintiff's amended complaint alleged only trademark infringement and did not allege a broader unfair competition claim. Even assuming that plaintiff's complaint cannot be read liberally to state such a claim, the argument is foreclosed by the parties' pretrial stipulation approved by the district court in its pretrial order. The stipulation specifically states that among the issues to be litigated at trial are similarity of the bottles, packaging, the wording of the information on the bottles, and the color patterns of the bottle. Record at 169-71. Plaintiff submitted exhibits and other evidence on these issues during its case in chief and defendant failed to object. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the district judge concluded that the evidence supported a claim of unfair competition. Defendant's counsel expressed surprise that such a claim was before the court. However, defendant's agreement to the stipulation and failure to object to evidence or the issues contained therein is an implied consent to an amendment to conform to the evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). See Wansor v. George Hantscho Co., 570 F.2d 1202, 1208 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 953, 99 S.Ct. 350, 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978); Wallin v. Fuller, 476 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1973)