Opinion ID: 691765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counterclaims Based on Make a Run for the Border

Text: Because Taco Bell owned and made prior use of Make a Run for the Border, it would prevail on its counterclaims if HGI's Run for the Border was confusingly similar to Taco Bell's Make a Run for the Border. See Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir.1988) (crucial issue for federal trademark infringement and California unfair competition actions is whether defendant's mark creates a likelihood of confusion). We have found infringement in analogous cases where the two marks, although not identical, contained similar words. See id. at 1179 (finding likelihood of confusion between Century Investments & Realty and Century 21); Golden Door, Inc. v. Odisho, 646 F.2d 347, 349-51 (9th Cir.1980) (upholding injunction based on finding that Golden Door for Hair and Golden Door Coiffeur were confusingly similar to plaintiff's trademark, Golden Door); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 526 (9th Cir.1984) (upholding district court's decision to preliminarily enjoin use of Pineapple trademark due to likelihood of confusion with Apple trademark). Taco Bell clearly raised the issue of confusing similarity and introduced substantial evidence regarding each of the six factors that guide a court's determination of likelihood of confusion. See Century 21, 846 F.2d at 1179 (listing factors). Because Taco Bell's use of Make a Run for the Border admittedly preceded HGI's use of Run for the Border, the district court's failure to consider this issue was error.