Opinion ID: 776502
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Smith's Intent

Text: 63 While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1059, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion, Interstellar, 184 F.3d at 1111. When the alleged infringer knowingly adopts a mark similar to another's, reviewing courts presume that the defendant can accomplish his purpose: that is, that the public will be deceived. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354 (citations omitted). The point is not that an intent to confuse is relevant as some measure of culpability. Rather, the alleged infringer's judgment as to what is likely to be confusing is relevant because it may well be accurate. 64 Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse. Official Airline Guides, 6 F.3d at 1394. On the present record, that inference may be drawn only as to Smith's use of Entrepreneur Illustrated on his publication's cover, as that is the only use we have held similar as a matter of law to EMI's ENTREPRENEUR mark. 13 The inference from knowledge and similarity, however, does not add much in answering the ultimate question here, likelihood of confusion, as the inference provides no direct evidence of Smith's judgment concerning likely confusion. 65 EMI did, however, offer evidence that throws a sharper light on Smith's intentions. There was testimony by a former EntrepreneurPR employee that when she informed Smith that people seemed to think EntrepreneurPR was related to Entrepreneur magazine, Smith replied, Yeah, it's great. Although Smith's statement was made after he adopted the mark at issue, that timing does not eliminate the significance of Smith's remark. True, the inference that can be drawn from an alleged infringer's knowing adoption of a similar mark focuses on his intent at that time. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354. Smith's direct statement is relevant, though, to his intent in continuing to use the mark and, as such, is pertinent to liability for trademark infringement. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) (providing for liability for one who uses a mark likely to cause confusion); see also Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354 (noting that the alleged infringer designed a distinctive logo after notification of the purported infringement). Smith did present evidence, however, of an unsatisfactory business relationship with this employee, bringing her credibility into question. And, of course, it is for the trier-of-fact, not the court deciding whether to grant summary judgment, to determine issues of credibility. See TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. American Coupon Exchange, Inc., 913 F.2d 676, 684-85 (9th Cir.1990). 66 In addition, a former EntrepreneurPR client testified that Smith's business partner, John Nixon, told her that the company was going to change its name and stated: You're familiar with Entrepreneur Magazine, right? Well, we're going to be EntrepreneurPR. Although EMI argues that this statement demonstrates an intent to confuse, a reasonable juror could find otherwise. Nixon may have mentioned Entrepreneur magazine only as an example of the common, marketplace use of the somewhat exotic-sounding word entrepreneur, not to imply an affiliation with the magazine. This seems especially likely because Nixon was speaking to a client who hired the company before it became EntrepreneurPR — and therefore at a time when there was no arguable reason to assume an affiliation with EMI. What implication should be drawn from Nixon's statement is a factual question that should not be answered on summary judgment. Furthermore, Smith provided evidence that the client who testified to this statement was involved in a payment dispute with EntrepreneurPR, again raising a credibility issue for the fact-finder to resolve. See id. 67 Finally, an e-mail from an EntrepreneurPR employee to a potential client discussed the benefits of the publicity that EntrepreneurPR could provide and stated: We'd also like to include you in the next issue of Entrepreneur. EMI argues that this statement means that Smith would arrange to have his clients published in Entrepreneur magazine, and thus implies an affiliation with EMI. This is certainly a reasonable interpretation. We note, however, that the reference to Entrepreneur may have been simply an unfortunate choice of shorthand for  Entrepreneur Illustrated.  If so, the reference carelessly encouraged confusion as to an affiliation between EntrepreneurPR and EMI, but does not necessarily prove an intent to confuse. The correct interpretation of this e-mail, and the weight it should be given in adjudging Smith's intent, is best left to the trier-of-fact. 68 Nonetheless, based on the inference from Smith's knowledge of EMI's mark and the other evidence indicating an intent to confuse, the intent factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion, although — in light of the limited relevance of the inference, the timing of Smith's remark, and the factual questions surrounding the evidence — not decisively so. We note that, although we have placed this factor fourth in order of importance to this case, a determination on the merits that Smith intended to deceive consumers would provide strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion, Interstellar, 184 F.3d at 1111, and, as a result, could overcome weaker showings by EMI in other factors. 69