Opinion ID: 2966389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendant's Intent

Text: As we stated in Pizzeria Uno: The intent of the defendant is sometimes a major factor in infringement cases. If there is intent to confuse the buying public, this is strong evidence establishing likelihood of confusion, since one intending to profit from another's reputation generally attempts to make his signs, advertisements, etc., to resemble the other's so as deliberately to induce confusion. Id. at 1535. In other words, we presume that the person who sets out to infringe on another's trademark has more brains than scruples, and will likely succeed. Cf. Osem Food Indus. Ltd. v. Sherwood Foods, Inc., 917 F.2d 161, 165 (4th Cir. 1990): When a newcomer to the market copies a competitor's trade dress, its intent must be to benefit from the goodwill of the competitor's customers by getting them to believe that the new product is either the same, or originates from the same source as the product whose trade dress was copied. Logic requires . . . that from such intentional copying arises a presumption that the newcomer is successful and that there is a likelihood of confusion. In his memorandum opinion, the magistrate concluded that KayserRoth intended to infringe on Sara Lee's trademark, pointing to considerable circumstantial evidence in the record supporting a strong inference that, when Kayser-Roth resuscitated its Leg LooksR line, it expressly intended to take advantage of the mark's similarity to L'eggsR to siphon sales of Sara Lee's products.14 The district court, however, _________________________________________________________________ 14 The magistrate cited testimony that one of Kayser-Roth's vicepresidents directed the company's New Products Group to design packaging for its new line that differed from its other No nonsenseR products. The resultant trade dress was so close to that of Sheer EnergyR products that the magistrate -- with the approval of the district court -- enjoined its use. See Section I, supra. The same vice-president rejected the 17 found that Kayser-Roth had acted in good faith -- a finding that we may disturb only if it is clearly erroneous. Because we would reach the same result in this case regardless of Kayser-Roth's intent, reviewing the district court's disposition of this complex issue would serve no purpose; we thus decline to do so.