Opinion ID: 771611
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant--

Text: 31 (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribu tion, 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 . . . 32 shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant . . . . 33 15 U.S.C. 1114(1). 34 The purpose of a trademark is to allow customers to identify the manufacturer or sponsor of a good or the provider of a service. New Kids on the Block v. News. Am. Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 305 (9th Cir. 1992). Actual consumer confusion is not required for profit recovery; it is sufficient to showa likelihood of confusion combined with willful infringement. Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). For the reasons that follow, we believe that Kassbaum's references to himself in promotional materials as Formerly of Steppenwolf, an Original Member of Steppenwolf, and an Original Founding Member of Steppenwolf, do not cause a likelihood of confusion. 5 35 First, we believe the phrases Formerly of, Original Member of  and Original Founding Member of, immediately preceding the name Steppenwolf  in the promotional materials for World Classic Rockers greatly reduce the likelihood of confusion about the source of the band's music. 36 Additionally, the context of the historical references to Kassbaum's affiliation with Steppenwolf in World Classic Rockers' promotional materials further reduces any likelihood of confusion between these two bands. In all promotional materials presented to the district court, references to World Classic Rockers are more prominent than are references to Steppenwolf. The materials display the title World Classic Rockers on the top or at the center of the page, while references to the band members' former groups, including Steppenwolf, are displayed on the bottom or around the edges of the page. Also, the title World Classic Rockers  appears in large and bold lettering, while smaller and plainer lettering is used for the titles of the former groups, including Steppenwolf. Finally, while the materials mention multiple former groups, the materials promote only World Classic Rockers, not Steppenwolf, or any other former band. 6 37 Our holding is supported by cases in similar contexts. Forexample, in Kingsmen v. K-Tel International Ltd. , 557 F. Supp. 178 (S.D.N.Y 1983), the district court distinguished the likelihood of confusion that exists when a former member of a band re-records a song under the name of the original band from the likelihood of confusion that exists when the former member re-records a song under his own name with the designation formerly of  the original band displayed on the recording. The first situation, the court stated, created a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, while the latter, although not then before the court, would not. Id. at 183-184 ([W]e would see no objection to defendants' marketing of this particular recording of Louie, Louie under the name of Jack Ely with the caption, `formerly of the Kingsmen' or `Jack Ely, lead singer on the original Kingsmen recording of Louie, Louie.' It is the representation that the rendition of Louie, Louie appearing on defendants' album was re recorded by the individuals collectively known as The Kingsmen that we find likely to confuse and therefore objectionable under the Lanham Act.). 38 In Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (S.D. Cal. 1998), the district court addressed concerns regarding the differences between commercial trademark use and descriptions of individuals that use trade names. In that case, the publisher of Playboy sued a former Playmate of the Year for so designating herself on her personal web site, asserting various claims related to trademark. In denying the publisher's motion for preliminary injunction, the court held that defendant was entitled to the fair use defense. Id. at 1103. (The `fair use' defense, in essence, forbids a trademark registrant to appropriate a descriptive term for his exclusive use and so prevent others from accurately describing a characteristic of their goods. (Internal quotations omitted)). In holding that the fair use defense applied, the court noted that [i]n the case at bar, Ms. Welles has used the trademark term Playmate of the Year to identify and describe herself . . . . Ms. Welles earned the title of `Playboy Playmate of the Year' in1981 and has used that title ever since, without objection. Id. Because the court applied the fair use defense, it found it unnecessary to determine the likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act. Id. at 1104. The court, however, went on to state that it did not see any likelihood of confusion under this circuit's eight-factor test. Id. at 1104-05. 39 Finally, we wholeheartedly agree with Justice Holmes's statement about the limits of trademark protection in Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368 (1924):When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo. We reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment to SPI and SI and dismissing Kassbaum's complaint for declaratory judgment as to the Lanham Act issue.