Opinion ID: 3039136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injunction Based on “Inevitable Confusion”

Text: Creamery argues that even if its claim is subject to laches, an injunction still should have issued to protect the public from “inevitable confusion” between the two product lines. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (granting district courts the “power to grant injunctions, according to principles of equity . . . , to prevent the violation of any right” of the trademark owner). The district court was not persuaded by this argument and neither are we. [12] As we recognized in Jarrow Formulas, the danger of “inevitable confusion” between products will defeat a successful laches defense only in a narrow set of circumstances: [I]n order to ensure that laches remains a viable defense to Lanham Act claims, the public’s interest will trump laches only when the suit concerns allegations that the product is harmful or otherwise a threat to public safety and well being. 304 F.3d at 841. Creamery has not alleged that Smoker’s meat snacks are harmful or otherwise threaten the public’s safety or well being. It thus cannot show an overriding public interest that trumps Smoker’s laches defense. Even if we were inclined to narrow the Jarrow Formulas rule, this would not be the case for it. As the district court noted, “Creamery[ ] affirmatively [held] out Smoker’s prodTILLAMOOK COUNTRY v. TILLAMOOK COUNTY 17541 ucts” in its catalog, store, and website, prompting some of the confusion of which it now complains of. Tillamook I, 311 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. As the issuance of an injunction involves a balancing of equities, we generally leave the decision to the considered judgment of the district court. See Reno Air Racing, 452 F.3d at 1137-38. Nothing in the record leads us to second guess the court’s conclusion that the equities favor Smoker in this case.