Opinion ID: 3160389
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The intent of defendant in selecting the mark

Text: We have held that “[i]f a party chooses a mark with the intent of causing confusion, that fact alone may be sufficient to justify an inference of confusing similarity.” AutoZone, 373 F.3d at 799 (quoting Homeowners Grp., 931 F.2d at 1111). Moreover, where the copying is deliberate, even if the intent to confuse is not, “purposeful copying indicates that the alleged infringer. . . believes that his copying may divert some business from the senior user.” Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, 109 F.3d at 286 (citing Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Pizza Caesar, Inc., 834 F.2d 568, 572 (6th Cir. 1987)). There is no doubt that the use of the Tri-Serve name in the e-mail was intentional: Strunk-Zwick and Sheakley employees planned the move of the TriServe clients to Sheakley over the course of weeks. A Sheakley employee suggested the language about “partnering” to Strunk-Zwick. The use of the Tri-Serve name cannot have been anything other than purposeful; we therefore read Strunk-Zwick’s e-mail as calculated to mislead the Tri-Serve clients into diverting their business to Sheakley.