Opinion ID: 4019039
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: FNU’s intent

Text: “If it can be shown that a defendant adopted a plaintiff’s mark with the intention of deriving a benefit from the plaintiff’s business reputation, this fact 38 Case: 15-11509 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Page: 39 of 50 alone may be enough to justify the inference that there is confusing similarity.” Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1340; see also AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1542. In examining this factor, the district court had to determine whether FNU “had a conscious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff’s business reputation, was intentionally blind, or otherwise manifested improper intent” in adopting its new name and acronym. Custom Mfg. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Midway Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641, 648 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations and alteration omitted). The district court found that FNU’s prior knowledge of FIU’s marks was insufficient to create an inference of improper intent, and that the prior litigation between FIU and FNU related to FNU’s name change to “Florida International College” was not persuasive evidence of improper intent because the parties had peacefully coexisted for more than twenty years after settling that lawsuit. Accordingly, the court found that the intent factor weighed against finding a likelihood of confusion. FIU argues, in essence, that the district court drew the wrong inference from the parties’ litigation history, and that the prior trademark suit requires a presumption that FNU acted improperly in changing its name. We acknowledge that FNU’s shifting explanations for its name change,7 combined with its history of 7 At the outset of this litigation, FNU contended that it changed its name to include “university” because it believed its accrediting body required the name change once FNU began (continued on next page) 39 Case: 15-11509 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Page: 40 of 50 choosing names similar to FIU’s, could have supported a finding of wrongful intent. But, as the district court observed, the parties had peacefully coexisted for over twenty years after their prior litigation, and FNU has provided a plausible explanation for why it added the word “University” to its name. Considering these mixed indicia of FNU’s intent in adopting its new name, we think that there were at least two permissible ways to view the evidence. Therefore, the district court’s finding that FNU’s name change was not improperly motivated was not clearly erroneous. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574.