Opinion ID: 393678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State and Federal Trademark Infringement

Text: 16 Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), provides that, 17 (1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant 18 (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; 19 shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. 20 In substantially similar form, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. c. 110B, § 11 declares that, 21 any person who shall: 22 (a) use, without consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a mark registered under this chapter in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive as to the source of origin of such goods or services; 23 shall be liable to a civil action by the owner of such registered mark for any or all of the remedies provided in section thirteen, except that under this section the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such mark is intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. 24 Likelihood of confusion is thus an essential element of a claim of trademark infringement, whether asserted under Massachusetts or federal law, see Coca-Cola Co. v. Snow Crest Beverages, Inc., 162 F.2d 280, 283 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 809, 68 S.Ct. 110, 92 L.Ed. 386 (1947); 3 R. Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 80 (3d ed. 1969). Viewing the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits in the light most favorable to Pignons, the district court concluded they were incapable of establishing that Polaroid's use of the mark Alpha would cause confusion among prospective purchasers with respect to Pignons' Alpa cameras. 25 In assessing likelihood of confusion, courts have commonly looked to the following factors: the similarity of the marks; the similarity of the goods; the relationship between the parties' channels of trade; the relationship between the parties' advertising; the classes of prospective purchasers; evidence of actual confusion; the defendants' intent in adopting its mark; and the strength of the plaintiff's mark. See Alpha Industries, Inc. v. Alpha Steel Tube & Shapes, Inc., 616 F.2d 440 (9th Cir. 1980); Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S.Ct. 268, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); DeCosta v. CBS, Inc., 520 F.2d 499 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1073, 96 S.Ct. 856, 47 L.Ed.2d 83 (1976). We now examine the evidence favorable to Pignons as it applies to each of these factors: 26 (1) The similarity of the marks. In spelling and pronunciation, Polaroid's mark differs from Pignons' only by virtue of the letter h. Marks less closely related in appearance and sound have been held to be confusingly similar. See 3 Callman, supra, § 82.1(a)(2), (3), at 609-19. But as the district court correctly observed, similarity is determined on the basis of the total effect of the designation, rather than a comparison of individual features. See Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 444; Amstar Corp., 615 F.2d at 260-61; Snow Crest Beverages, 162 F.2d at 283-84. In the present case, the total effect of Polaroid's designation of its SX-70 Alpha cameras minimizes, if it does not eliminate, the possibility that Polaroid's mark might be confused with Pignons'. On the cameras themselves, and in Polaroid's advertising, the word Alpha always appears in close proximity with an equally prominent and uniquely identifying designation, such as Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera Alpha 1, Polaroid SX-70 Alpha Executive Land Camera, or Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera Alpha Sears Special. Further, the packaging of Polaroid and Pignons cameras differs substantially. The parties have not questioned the district court's observation that, 27 the vast majority of Pignons' cameras are packaged in red and white boxes featuring the word Swiss or Switzerland, a white cross on a red background and the logo of a mountain. By contrast, Polaroid's boxes are white, black or silver, and all bear a distinctive multicolored geometric design which is a federally registered trademark. 28 We and other courts have indicated that in certain circumstances otherwise similar marks are not likely to be confused where used in conjunction with the clearly displayed name and/or logo of the manufacturer. See Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. All Nighter Stove Works, Inc., 626 F.2d 193, 194-95 (1st Cir. 1980); Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366, 378-79 (1st Cir. 1980); Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 444; Bose Corp. v. Linear Design Labs, Inc., 467 F.2d 304, 310 (2d Cir. 1972); R. G. Barry Corp. v. A. Sandler Co., 406 F.2d 114, 116 (1st Cir. 1969) (finding conjunction of housemark with contested trademark to be of exceptional significance). 29 (2) The similarity of the goods. Both the products in this case are single lens reflex cameras; otherwise they have little in common. 30 Their appearances are strikingly different so much so that one could not be mistaken for the other. In significant ways, their functional characteristics are equally distinct. Polaroid's SX-70 Alpha Land cameras are instant cameras that produce a fully developed photograph moments after a picture is taken. They can be collapsed into a flat rectangle that fits in a pocket. Pignons' Alpa cameras have neither of these characteristics. On the other hand, Pignons' cameras can be fitted with a variety of different lenses, while Polaroid's SX-70 Alpha Land cameras come equipped with a standard, nondetachable lens. 31 In addition, Pignons' cameras are substantially more expensive than Polaroid's. During the years 1976-1978, the list prices of Pignons' Alpa cameras ranged from $550 for the least expensive to $1,395 for the most expensive. By contrast, the suggested retail prices of Polaroid's SX-70 Alpha cameras in 1976-1977 ranged from $139.99 for the SX-70 Land Camera Alpha Sears Special, to $188 for the SX-70 Alpha Executive Land Camera, to $233 for an SX-70 Land Camera Alpha 1. The lowest market price cited by Pignons for one of its own cameras was $229.95, and for one of Polaroid's, $132.50. 32 (3) The relationship between Pignons' and Polaroid's channels of trade. 33 (4) The relationship between the parties' advertising. 34 (5) The classes of prospective purchasers. 35 As these factors are interrelated in this situation, we treat them together. Alpa cameras have been marketed in the United States through a series of exclusive distributorships which, in turn, sell to the public exclusively through a select group of about 125 camera specialty stores. Very few Pignons cameras are sold in this country. In the years 1965 through 1979, total dollar volume of sales ranged from a low of $30,182.04 (1976) to a high of $721,221.69 (1978). From July 1976 through June 1978, 2,517 Alpa cameras were delivered to the United States; from July 1978 to June 1979, no Alpa cameras were delivered; and from June 1979 through March 1980, only 62 cameras were delivered. Polaroid, by contrast, mass-markets its SX-70 cameras through camera shops, discount stores, drug stores and other retail outlets. Overlap in the parties' channels of distribution can occur only in the approximately 125 camera specialty stores which sell Pignons' Alpa cameras. 36 Pignons' and Polaroid's advertising, for the most part, is also different. The district court noted that advertising for Alpa cameras has been restricted to periodic spots in photography magazines. Pignons' promotional materials emphasize the handcrafted character of Alpa cameras their quality and durability. Mention is also made of their versatility, their ability to accept a great variety of lenses, and their suitability for difficult photography picture-taking in such spheres as natural science, medicine, highly technical hobbies, micro- and macrophotography. One article's implicit description of a prospective purchaser of an Alpa camera was as follows: 37 If you appreciate traditional European craftsmanship for its own sake, and are willing to pay for it, then maybe the Alpa is for you. Like all limited-production classics, it has a small, devoted following. 38 Polaroid's SX-70 Alpha Land cameras are, on the other hand, marketed to appeal to a much broader range of consumers. Though Polaroid sometimes advertises in the same photographic magazines that carry Pignons' ads, it also promotes SX-70 Alpha cameras in magazines with a more general audience People, Time, Newsweek, Atlantic, Esquire, Money, and U.S. News and World Report as well as on television. Polaroid's advertisements and brochures emphasize that the SX-70 is a moderately priced instant camera capable of folding into a compact shape. It is characterized as easy to use, convenient to carry and inexpensive: 39 Compact. Lightweight. Versatile. Those three words sum up the line of Polaroid cameras for SX-70 pictures. Just as easy and beautiful sum up reactions to SX-70 pictures and picture-taking. 40 Three cameras fold to approximately 1 X 4 X 7 inches, yet allow you the greatest focusing range of any camera without a special lens 10.4 inches (for extreme closeups) to infinity (for landscapes). Two are rigid and yet compact enough to fit in the palm of your hand (they focus from 3 feet to infinity). All are lightweight. 41 In short, only Polaroid cameras offer a variety of features that can make instant picture taking easy and fun for just about any pocketbook. 42 Nevertheless, Polaroid also emphasizes the high quality and sophistication of its products, particularly the top-of-the-line SX-70 Land Camera Alpha 1. The SX-70 is variously touted as the finest camera Polaroid has ever made and the most advanced camera in the world, offering the ultimate in precise focusing, framing and close-up capabilities. SX-70 cameras purportedly provide the greatest focusing range of any camera without a special lens and make use of advanced technology. Seemingly illustrating the suitability of the SX-70 camera for serious photographic work, one Polaroid advertisement juxtaposes a striking picture of a New Guinea aborigine with the statement, This Polaroid SX-70 photograph by Ansel Adams was exhibited at a major New York gallery. Thus while Polaroid instant cameras are offered to the general public, it can be contended that among the prospective purchasers of the finest Polaroid SX-70 Alpha cameras there would be some who might buy a Pignons Alpa serious photographers willing to pay a good deal for high-quality, sophisticated photographic equipment. Such customers might purchase a camera in a specialty camera store, the only place where Pignons' and Polaroid's channels of distribution overlap. 43 It does not follow, however, that having shown this much, Pignons has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the likelihood of consumer confusion. Those most likely to buy an expensive, sophisticated camera in a specialty camera store are also least likely to be confused by any similarities in Polaroid's and Pignons' marks. Courts have found less likelihood of confusion where goods are expensive and purchased after careful consideration. See Fisher Stoves, 626 F.2d at 194; Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 445; Kiekhaefer Corp. v. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., 236 F.2d 423, 427-28 (C.C.P.A.1956); Magnaflux Corp. v. Sonoflux Corp., 231 F.2d 669, 671 (C.C.P.A.1956); L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. United Conditioning Corp., 222 F.2d 755, 757-58 (C.C.P.A.1955). Sophisticated consumers may be expected to exercise greater care. See 3 Callman, supra, § 81.2(a). Taking the undisputed facts most favorable to Pignons, we can see no realistic likelihood that the relevant classes of consumers would be confused by the parties' distribution and advertising of their cameras. 44 (6) Evidence of actual confusion. The record contains evidence, Pignons argues, of actual confusion on the part of some consumers over the relationship between Polaroid Alpha cameras and Pignons Alpa cameras. 45 First, Pignons points to several registration cards for Alpa cameras and to letters sent to Pignons in which Alpa is erroneously spelled Alpha. On the registration cards in the record, the earliest is from 1959, the most recent from 1973, three years prior to Polaroid's introduction of its SX-70 Alpha Land Cameras. Of the letters, only one (from a Pignons customer in Sydney, Australia) was written after Polaroid introduced its SX-70 Alpha camera. Indeed, only one of the letters in the record appendix came from the United States; it was written in 1975. Beyond demonstrating what is obvious that Alpa is Alpha minus an h this evidence demonstrates only that for over 20 years Pignons' trademark has been subject to misspelling. There is nothing in the cards or letters to suggest confusion of products or businesses. 46 Pignons also cites misspellings of its trademark in advertisements, catalogues, magazines and newspapers, but again these evince not product confusion but, at most, that the two words are very close (or, at least, that some people spell badly). 47 Third, before the district court Pignons claimed to have received a misdirected order for Polaroid SX-70 Alpha cameras. We find no verification for this claim, but in any event a single misdirected communication is very weak evidence of consumer confusion. See Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 445; Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1231 (3d Cir. 1978). 48 Fourth, in a letter submitted to the district court after oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, counsel for Pignons drew the court's attention to a supposed instance of consumer confusion mentioned in the deposition testimony of Stuart Held, the former president of T.A.G. Held's testimony reveals only that having read an article discussing T.A.G.'s involvement in a lawsuit over use of the mark Alpha, and having been unable to purchase from Sears that company's model of the SX-70 Alpha purportedly because of the suit, a consumer called the president of T.A.G. to see if he could help him with the situation on an Alpha camera purchase because Sears could not supply him at that point. This incident could not support a reasonable inference of consumer confusion. If anything, the circumstances suggest that the consumer was well aware of the difference between Polaroid's and Pignons' cameras and businesses, but hoped somehow to circumvent Sears' restriction on sales of Alpha cameras. 2 49 Finally, Pignons offers a letter from an architectural photographer, Rosemary Kennett, as evidence of actual consumer confusion. Addressed to Karl Heitz, Inc., T.A.G.'s predecessor as Pignons' exclusive distributor in the United States, Kennett's letter notes, 50 When I first heard of Polaroid's Alpha, I wondered if they had bought and were distributing your camera. I was surprised that they would market such a dissimilar camera, but assumed they were interested in an additional photo business. 51 The district court dismissed this evidence as not supporting Pignons' position: The tenor of the letter, together with the fact that Ms. Kennett knew who to write to about her concerns, suggests that she was not herself confused about either the source or the nature of the defendants' product, but was simply concerned about the potential response of other prospective customers. This interpretation, the court concluded, was corroborated by Kennett's deposition testimony. 52 While we agree with the district court that Kennett's letter and deposition testimony demonstrate a lack of confusion about the difference between SX-70 Alpha cameras and Pignons' Alpa cameras, they arguably tend to show that Polaroid's use of the mark Alpha might cause someone to be confused as to the business relationship between Polaroid and Pignons. Confusion over the nature of the parties' business relationship may be as objectionable for purposes of trademark infringement as is confusion between their goods. 3 Callman, supra, § 80.2. 53 But this incident, by itself, seems clearly insufficient. Evidence of actual confusion is not invariably necessary to prove likelihood of confusion; on the other hand, absent evidence of actual confusion, when the marks have been in the same market, side by side, for a substantial period of time, there is a strong presumption that there is little likelihood of confusion. 3 Callman, supra, § 82.3(a), at 849. See Keebler Co., 624 F.2d at 377; DeCosta, 520 F.2d at 514. Polaroid introduced its SX-70 Alpha cameras in the fall of 1976 and the motion for summary judgment was not argued and decided until the fall of 1980. Four years is a substantial amount of time, compare Keebler Co., 624 F.2d at 377 (three and one-half years without proof of actual consumer confusion), and Pignons' inability to bring forth more than this single, feeble and indirect example of possible consumer confusion strongly indicates that Polaroid's use of the mark Alpha has not created a likelihood of confusion, compare Amstar Corp., 615 F.2d at 263 (finding only three instances of consumer confusion after 15 years of sales raises a presumption against likelihood of confusion). 54 (7) Polaroid's intent in adopting its mark. We adopt the district court's treatment of this factor: 55 Polaroid claims the word Alpha was selected for use as part of the name of its SX-70 series because the cameras contain what is generally known within the company as improved Alpha electronics or Alpha II electronics. The term has allegedly been used internally at Polaroid since 1972 to describe the electrical circuitry being developed for use in the SX-70 camera. 56 Plaintiffs do not dispute this explanation but claim that regardless of its origin, defendants' use of the term is confusing and therefore should be enjoined. Plaintiffs further allege that Polaroid's adoption and use of the term Alpha was deliberate and was done with full knowledge of plaintiffs' mark and Trademark Registration for the mark ALPA and Polaroid's continued use of the mark Alpha is willful. 57 In the instant case, despite their general, conclusory allegations of willfulness, plaintiffs have not adduced a scintilla of evidence of palming off, intent to deceive, or any effort whatsoever by Polaroid or Sears to benefit from Pignons' reputation through their use of the term Alpha. As discussed supra, defendants' packaging, advertising and promotional materials flatly belie any such notion. 58 (8) The strength of Pignons' mark. For summary judgment purposes, we think Pignons' mark Alpa is to be viewed as a relatively strong mark. The record shows that Alpa has been used on Pignons' cameras and photographic accessories since Pignons began marketing them in the United States in 1949. Pignons asserts moreover, and the record viewed favorably in its behalf supports, that it is a leader in the photographic industry, and that its product is both outstanding and innovative. Magazine comments speak of the mark Alpa as a prestigious name that has come to connote quality: 59 For decades the name Alpa has stood for a bench-assembled 35 mm SLR (single lens reflex), as expensive as it is unconventional .... 60 Modern Photography, December 1977, at 117. 61 For many years the name Alpa has been associated with very expensive, precision made 35 mm SLR cameras manufactured in Switzerland. 62 SLR Annual 1979, at 14. This evidence would indicate that within the market for sophisticated cameras, the mark Alpa possesses a degree of distinctiveness and popularity and hence may be a relatively strong mark. 63 The district court, to be sure, opined that plaintiffs' mark is not inherently 'strong,' but lies somewhere in the middle range of distinctiveness. The similarity between Alpa and the mark Alpha, a common, widely used word, see Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 445, has arguably diminished its distinctiveness. See 3 Callman, supra, § 82.1(1), at 760. According to the district court, 64 Plaintiffs' own trademark search reports uncovered 27 federal registrations or applications, 5 state registrations, and 22 directory entries involving the word alpha alone or with other words. These included federal registration for ALFA for opthalmic lenses, ALPHAX for photographic equipment, and AGFA for cameras and parts. In addition, plaintiffs obtained a list of company names listing approximately 1200 uses of the word Alpha with other words, and approximately 75 uses of alpha as part of a word. 65 But while a finding of lesser strength might have been warranted after a trial, the submissions now before us, viewed most favorably to Pignons, lead us to assume for present purposes that Alpa is a relatively strong mark. 66 Notwithstanding our assumption in this regard, however, Pignons cannot prevail. Strong marks are accorded broader protection against infringement than are weak marks. See Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 445; Amstar Corp., 615 F.2d at 259; 3 Callman, supra, § 82.1(1), at 755. That Alpa is a relatively strong mark reduces, see Alpha Industries, 616 F.2d at 445-46, 3 but does not relieve Pignons of the burden of substantiating its trademark infringement claim by sufficient evidence of a likelihood of confusion. On the showing that has been made, Pignons has failed to demonstrate an ability to meet that burden. Taking everything in Pignons' favor, still none of the factors relevant to a finding of likelihood of confusion supports Pignons' position. Indeed, it is difficult to discern any likelihood that Polaroid's use of the mark Alpha has caused or would cause confusion among potential consumers. 67 We, therefore, affirm the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Pignons' claims of trademark infringement in violation of section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), and Massachusetts law, Mass.Gen.Laws c. 110B, § 11. 4