Opinion ID: 76594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trade dress infringement of DDI's logo

Text: 39 The touchstone test for a violation of § 43(a) is the likelihood of confusion resulting from the defendant's adoption of a trade dress similar to the plaintiff's. AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1538 (internal quotations omitted). 40 In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists, the fact finder evaluates a number of elements including [the following seven factors]: the strength of the trade dress, the similarity of design, the similarity of the product, the similarity of retail outlets and purchasers, the similarity of advertising media used, the defendant's intent, and actual confusion. The issue of likelihood of confusion is not determined by merely analyzing whether a majority of the subsidiary factors indicates that such a likelihood exists. Rather, a court must evaluate the weight to be accorded the individual factors and then make its ultimate decision. The appropriate weight to be given to each of these factors varies with the circumstances of the case. 41 Id. (internal citations omitted). 42 DDI argues that the district court erred because it considered only the similarity of the designs rather than all seven factors. We agree. The extent to which two marks are confusingly similar cannot be assessed without considering all seven factors to ensure that the determination is made in light of the totality of the circumstances. Wesco Mfg., Inc. v. Tropical Attractions of Palm Beach, Inc., 833 F.2d 1484, 1488-89 (11th Cir.1987) (holding that the court committed reversible error when it focused solely on the degree of visual similarity between the two marks). 43 However, a district court's failure to consider all the factors relevant to the issue of whether two marks are confusingly similar does not necessarily constitute reversible error. Id. at 1489. Due to the applicable de novo standard of review in this case, this court may analyze the remaining six factors. After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to DDI, as the non-movant, we conclude that the remaining six factors all weigh in favor of DDI. 12 Nonetheless, we conclude that no reasonable jury could find that the two logos are confusingly similar because the lack of visual similarity between the two designs is overwhelming. 13 See AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1538 (stating that a court must evaluate the weight to be accorded the individual factors and then make its ultimate decision). Therefore, summary judgment in favor of FBD was proper. 44 DDI further argues that the district court erred because it evaluated the logos too closely. DDI relies on AmBrit to support its argument that the district court should have considered in its analysis of the logos the actual sales environment with the typical consumers [Appellant's Br. at 3], to wit, 8-18 year old impulse ice cream buyers. Because these typical consumers do not closely evaluate the logos when they make their impulse purchases, the district court, according to DDI, erred when it evaluated the logos closely. This court stated in AmBrit that 45 a court may not view trade dress in a vacuum. Rather, a court must consider how the trade dress would function in the actual market place. Ice cream novelties are impulse items ... sold... to hurried shoppers. When viewed in this context, the general similarity of the design of the trade dress of the two products is a[] ... strong[] indication of the existence of likelihood of confusion. 46 AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1541 (involving competing trade dress packages that were both 3 × 3 inch panels of silver, white, and blue, depicting a polar bear on all fours, with block lettering, and sold in the same locations) (emphasis added). In the logos at issue here, however, there is no general similarity. DDI repeatedly refers to the subtle visual differences in the two logos. [Appellant's Br. at 10.] The differences, however, are anything but subtle. In fact, the two logos are overwhelmingly dissimilar, even upon a quick and cursory viewing in the impulse buying market. Notwithstanding that both logos are colorful [and] fanciful [Appellant's Br. at 12], the two logos are so different that no reasonable jury could find that even a hurried 8-18 year old impulse shopper could confuse them. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of FBD was proper.