Opinion ID: 151187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Alleged Infringer's Intent to Pass Off its Goods as the Trademark Owner's

Text: The fourth factor analyzes whether the alleged infringer intended to pass off its goods as the trademark owner's goods. Frosty Treats, 426 F.3d at 1008. While proof of bad intent is not required for success in an infringement or unfair competition claim, the absence of such intent is a factor to be considered. Id. Knowledge of another's product and an intent to compete with that product is not ... equivalent to an intent by a new entrant to a market to mislead and to cause consumer confusion. Luigino's, 170 F.3d at 831. In considering this factor, the district court first acknowledged the temporary restraining order it previously entered against SensoryFlavors, in which it noted Nicolais's selection of the SensoryFlavors name after he was previously employed by Sensient created a strong inference of his intent to confuse the public. However, the court concluded the evidence produced after additional discovery did not support this inference because Nicolais worked for a separate division while he was employed by Sensient, and even if he maintained knowledge of the Sensient Flavors name, his knowledge did not equate with an intent to mislead. Rather, the court determined SensoryEffects selected its name in order to capitalize its already-established mark and the goodwill established under the Givaudan Flavors name. Sensient asserts the court ignored evidence demonstrating SensoryEffects was aware Sensient was a direct competitor prior to purchasing Givaudan Flavors and it intentionally selected similar marks. Instead, Sensient argues the court relied on the self-serving affidavit of Nicolais, who claimed he was unaware of the Sensient Flavors mark. Sensient also argues SensoryEffects was obligated to move further away from the Sensient Flavors name after the temporary restraining order was entered, such that inserting Effects was insufficient to meet its obligation. In determining whether SensoryEffects intended to pass off its goods as those of Sensient's, we believe the analysis in Luigino's is instructive. In Luigino's, the owners of the Lean Cuisine mark alleged that Luigino's intentionally adopted a similar mark, Lean `N Tasty, to capitalize on the goodwill established under the Lean Cuisine mark. Id. The evidence before the court demonstrated that Luigino's rejected a consultant's advice to avoid the Lean `N Tasty mark and it believed the low-fat Lean `N Tasty entrees might be comparable to Lean Cuisine entrees. Id. Despite this evidence, this court determined there was no evidence Luigino's intended to capitalize on the strong Lean Cuisine mark. Id. The court explained that Luigino's chose the name Lean `N Tasty because it wanted to avoid the word light, it believed the word low-fat was overused, and because it did not agree with the consultant's recommendation to avoid the word lean. Id. According to the court, the reference to Lean Cuisine only evinced an intent to compete with the product, not an intent to infringe on the mark. Id. As a result, the court held there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding predatory intent. Id. Similarly, in General Mills, Inc., this court declined to find predatory intent on the part of the owner of the Oatmeal Raisin Crisp mark, despite the owner's intent to compete with the Apple Raisin Crisp mark. 824 F.2d at 627. Oatmeal Raisin Crisp went so far as to send promotional fliers to distributors encouraging them to replace Apple Raisin Crisp with its product. Id. However, the court again concluded that knowledge of another's product and an intent to compete with that product does not equate to predatory intent. Id. We believe the intent alleged by Sensient in this case is similar to the allegations in Luigino's and General Mills, Inc. While the parties strongly dispute the extent of Nicolais's knowledge of the Sensient Flavors name, our precedent demonstrates any knowledge maintained by Nicolais is not dispositive of the inquiry because knowledge of another's product and an intent to compete does not correspond with an intent to mislead. Id. Sensient alleges the inference to be drawn from the evidence is that Nicolais had an intent to confuse customers by using a name similar to Sensient Flavors; however, there is no support in the record for this assertion other than speculation. Rather, the facts of this case are similar to Duluth News-Tribune, where the court recognized the allegedly infringing name Saturday Daily News & Tribune was a logical merger of the names Daily News and Daily Tribune. 84 F.3d at 1097. Here, the prior owners of SensoryEffects filed an application for registration of the SensoryEffects name and graphic in July 2004, which was formally registered by the PTO on July 3, 2007. After PCI acquired Givaudan Flavors, it was not permitted to use the Givaudan Flavors name for more than sixty days after the purchase. As a result, the company decided to combine the SensoryEffects and Givaudan Flavors names to form SensoryFlavors. After this lawsuit was filed, the company changed its name to SensoryEffects Flavor Systems, incorporating the full SensoryEffects name that was already registered with the PTO. Under these circumstances, the district court was not incorrect in concluding the SensoryEffects Flavor Systems name was a logical combination of the previously-established SensoryEffects and Givaudan Flavors names. After a careful review of the record, we conclude no reasonable jury could find in favor of Sensient on the fourth factor.