Opinion ID: 3160389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use in a “trademark way”

Text: In some cases, a threshold question exists as to whether the challenged use of a trademark identifies the source of goods; if not, that use is in a “non-trademark way” outside the protections of trademark law. Interactive Products Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 695 (6th Cir. 2003). This finding may be dispositive: plaintiffs cannot succeed on a trademark claim where trademark law does not apply. If, however, a plaintiff shows that a defendant is “‘using the challenged mark in a way that identifies the source of their goods,’” which we consider use in a trademark way, we proceed to the remainder of our analysis. Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The district court held that the e-mail and flyer used Tri-Serve’s mark in a non-trademark way “as a source of comparison between the two organizations,” and ended its analysis there. Grubbs v. Sheakley Grp., No. 1:13cv246, 2015 WL 1321126, at  (S.D. Ohio Mar. 18, 2015). Relying on Hensley, the Sheakley Defendants ask us to affirm the district court’s ruling that Strunk-Zwick used the Tri-Serve name in the e-mails in a non-trademark way. See 579 F.3d at 611. Plaintiffs contend that Strunk-Zwick used the Tri-Serve name in a trademark way in the e- mails and mailings, and that Defendants’ reliance on Hensley is mistaken. They urge us instead to follow Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 1998), in which we affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on a false designation of origin claim where an architect had erased another architect’s name and mark on a set of plans and replaced them with his own. Hensley concerned an inventor of RV hitches, Jim Hensley, who had left the company bearing his name, Hensley Manufacturing, and licensed a new design to Hensley Manufacturing’s rival, ProPride, Inc. 579 F.3d at 607. Hensley Manufacturing owned the trademark to “Hensley.” Id. at 606. ProPride’s promotional material mentioned Jim Hensley’s history of designing hitches and that he had designed a new hitch, the 3P Hitch, for ProPride. Id. at 608. Three pieces of promotional material contained a disclaimer that Jim Hensley was no longer affiliated with Hensley Manufacturing; another described his history at Hensley No. 15-3302 Grubbs, et al. v. Sheakley Group, et al. Page 9 Manufacturing and then with ProPride. Id. at 607–08. Hensley affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, holding that ProPride was clearly the source of the 3P Hitch, and that ProPride’s use of “Hensley” always in the context of the inventor’s full name, Jim Hensley, was not used in a trademark way and therefore created no likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the product. Id. at 611. We believe that the Sheakley Defendants’ reliance on Hensley is misplaced, and that the court below erred in holding that the e-mail and flyer used the Tri-Serve name in a nontrademark way. The e-mail to existing Tri-Serve clients, which provided a new address of TriServe LTD c/o Sheakley HR Solutions at One Sheakley Way, thus designated the geographic source of the PEO services—and implied that those services would be originating from both TriServe and Sheakley HR. The payroll submission link to www.triservehr.com suggested that TriServe would still be the source of payroll services, as before. This Circuit has held for years that domain names, such as www.triservehr.com, “can and do communicate information as to the source or sponsor of the web site.” PACCAR Inc. v. TeleScan Technologies, L.L.C., 319 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 125 (2004). Thus, we consider Strunk-Zwick to have used the Tri-Serve name in a trademark way.