Opinion ID: 150721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Relevance of Geographic Proximity of Use

Text: We also reject Plaintiff's argument that the district court erred as a matter of law in considering the geographic proximity of the use of the parties' marks. Our circuit has recognized that new factors may merit consideration in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Swatch Watch, S.A. v. Taxor, Inc., 785 F.2d 956, 958 (11th Cir.1986). And our case law already establishes that geographic considerations may be relevant to the likelihood-of-confusion analysis, even where we have not articulated this consideration as a separate factor. See, e.g., St. Luke's Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186, 1209 (11th Cir. 2009) (considering the fact that the two companies worked in the same geographical market in holding that there was a clear likelihood of confusion of the parties' service marks to sustain the jury verdict); Alliance Metals, 222 F.3d at 908 (considering the undisputed evidence that both companies distributed prefinished aluminum sheets and sign blanks in the same territory in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion). We have already discussed the relevance of geography in our evaluation of the strength of Plaintiff's mark under the first factor of our existing seven-factor likelihood-of-confusion test. Where the secondary meaning acquired by a descriptive mark dictates its strength and distinctiveness, as here, the geographic remoteness of a mark's use may be relevant to the likelihood-of-confusion inquiry. Because Plaintiff seeks to establish a likelihood of confusion with a restaurant in Atlanta, the geographically remote use of his mark in West Hollywood weighs against a finding of nationwide secondary meaning, leaving him with only a weak mark unlikely to cause a likelihood of confusion in Atlanta. Geographic considerations are also particularly relevant where a plaintiff holds only common-law trademark rights in a mark because it is well-established that the scope of protection accorded his mark is coextensive only with the territory throughout which it is known and from which it has drawn its trade. Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403, 416, 36 S.Ct. 357, 361, 60 L.Ed. 713 (1916), superseded by statute in irrelevant part as stated in Park `N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). The owner of a registered mark, in contrast, enjoys the unlimited right to use the mark nationwide, and federal registration affords the registrant priority over all future users of confusingly similar marks. 15 U.S.C. § 1057(c); Coach House Rest., 934 F.2d at 1564. Therefore, a Lanham Act plaintiff asserting common-law trademark rights under § 43(a) against the owner of a registered mark, as here, bears the burden of establishing the right to use its mark by actual use in a given territory. Emergency One, Inc. v. Am. Fire Eagle Engine Co., 332 F.3d 264, 269 (4th Cir.2003). And because registration constitutes constructive nationwide notice of the registrant's priority of use of a mark, 15 U.S.C. § 1072, only actual use occurring prior to such registration gives rise to enforceable common-law trademark rights, 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Thus, federal registration has the practical effect of freezing a prior user's enforceable trademark rights thereby terminating any right to future expansion beyond the user's existing territory. Allard Enters., Inc. v. Advanced Programming Res., Inc., 249 F.3d 564, 572 (6th Cir.2001) (In the case in which a junior user applies for registration,... the extent of the senior user/nonregistrant's territory is frozen as of the date of actual registration to the junior user.). [10] Accordingly, because Plaintiff continued to operate only a single location of Dan Tana's at the time Defendants registered their mark, his trademark rights in the Dan Tana's name are limited to the Los Angeles market. Furthermore, the record also establishes that Defendants currently operate restaurants only in the Atlanta area and that the mark of neither party is known by the customers in the other's market. Thus, at present, the parties' restaurants coexist in remote markets, geographically and otherwise. On such a record, geographic considerations are indeed relevant and demonstrate a smaller likelihood of confusion. See Coach House Rest., 934 F.2d at 1564-65 (explaining that in an action for trademark infringement, as opposed to a cancellation proceeding, brought by a prior user of an unregistered mark, there is no presumption that the mark is being used nationwide, and therefore where the two parties operate in discrete, remote areas, there is a smaller likelihood that there will be confusion); Brennan's, 360 F.3d at 134 (In the restaurant industry, especially where individual restaurants rather than chains are competing, physical separation seems particularly significant to the inquiry into consumer confusion.). We therefore hold that the geographic remoteness of the parties' restaurants is particularly relevant to our likelihood-of-confusion analysis where a plaintiff bases a trademark infringement claim on common-law trademark rights. The district court did not err in considering the geographic proximity of use as an eighth factor demonstrating the unlikelihood of confusion. [11] Viewing the likelihood-of-confusion factors as a whole, there is minimal evidence of a likelihood of confusion between Plaintiff's and Defendants' restaurants aside from the initial similarity of their names and the fact that they both provide restaurant services. The remaining factors all weigh against a likelihood of confusion, some overwhelmingly so. There are stark differences between the two restaurants' cuisine and ambiance. There is virtually no evidence of confusion in advertising channels. No reasonable jury could find that Defendants intended to trade on Plaintiff's mark, and there is negligible evidence of any actual confusion between the two restaurants. Moreover, in light of the vast geographical distance between the two markets currently used by the parties, a likelihood of confusion is highly unlikely. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between Plaintiff's and Defendants' marks. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff's Lanham Act count. Because neither party contests the district court's conclusion that the elements to establish deceptive trade practices under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud under O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55 are identical to those required to prevail on Plaintiff's federal infringement claim, we also affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on these state law claims. See Jellibeans, 716 F.2d at 839.