Opinion ID: 4301604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Similarity of the Products’ Designs

Text: The second likelihood of confusion factor focuses on the overall impression of the two products at issue. AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1540. The District Court stated that Yellowfin and Barker Boatworks “sell a product generally similar in appearance,” but noted that “several prominent differences permit a potential buyer to distinguish a Barker from a Yellowfin.” First, both Yellowfin and Barker Boatworks prominently display their respective logos, which “look nothing alike,” on their boats. Further, a Barker’s hull differs from that of a Yellowfin, and Barker “omits the rolled transom typical of most Yellowfin models.” 9 Finally, citing Nagler’s deposition, the District Court added plainly that “the layout of each boat 9 The “transom” is the backmost section of a boat that connects the port and starboard sections of the hull—where a boat’s name is typically displayed. A “rolled” transom is as opposed to a “straight” transom. The twenty-six-foot Yellowfin pictured above has a rolled transom, while the twenty-four-foot Yellowfin and the Barker boat pictured do not. 12 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 13 of 33 is different.” These differences, the Court stated, “will preclude a potential buyer[] [from] mistaking a Barker for a Yellowfin.” Yellowfin argues that the District Court erred by failing “to address the actual Yellowfin trade dress—its unique sheer line.” Had the District Court done so, Yellowfin continues, it would have found that the two sheer lines at issue are similar. Yellowfin concludes that the similarity between the sheer lines, combined with the Court’s statement that both boats are “generally similar in appearance,” tips this second likelihood of confusion factor in its favor. Although Yellowfin’s argument is weakened by the differences between its boats and those of Barker Boatworks—especially the different, prominently displayed logos—the mere presence of a distinguishing logo or other feature does not in all cases alleviate a likelihood of confusion. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 632 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[N]othing of record indicates that the mere presence of [the defendant’s] word mark avoids a likelihood of confusion.”). But see L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that the “conspicuous and permanent” labeling on the parties’ respective products avoided postsale consumer confusion). We more thoroughly engage with this principle infra, when discussing the “actual confusion” factor. For now, it suffices to say that the product design factor favors 13 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 14 of 33 Yellowfin, but this factor’s value is almost completely washed out by our actual confusion analysis below.