Opinion ID: 589967
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Similarity of the Trade Dresses

Text: 67 The district court found that the two trade dresses were strongly similar. After examining the two trade dresses, we conclude that, although they share many similar elements, the prominence of the trade names on the two packages weighs heavily against a finding of consumer confusion resulting from the overall look of the packaging. Therefore, we find that the district court's finding on this issue was clearly erroneous. 68 Undeniably, the Tylenol PM trade dress shares many attributes with the Excedrin PM trade dress. The color scheme used by the two products is similar. Both products have the PM designator on the same line as the trade name. The text on the packaging is also similar. However, in a trade dress infringement case the question is not how many points of similarity exist between the two packages but rather whether the two trade dresses create the same general overall impression. RJR Foods v. White Rock Corp., 603 F.2d 1058, 1060 (2d Cir.1979). The issue is whether the similarity between the two trade dresses will contribute to consumer confusion as to the origin of the product. See Western Publishing, 910 F.2d at 61 ( 'Ultimately, the crucial question is whether the similarity is likely to create confusion.' ) (citations omitted); McGregor-Doniger, 599 F.2d at 1133 ( 'Similarity in and of itself is not the acid test. Whether the similarity is likely to provoke confusion is the crucial question.' ) (quoting 3 R. Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 82.1(a), at 601-02 (3d ed.1969)). 69 The presence and prominence of markings tending to dispel confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the goods in question is highly relevant to an inquiry concerning the similarity of the two dresses. When prominently displayed it can go far towards eliminating any possible confusion, see, e.g., American Rolex Watch Corp. v. Ricoh Time Corp., 491 F.2d 877, 879 (2d Cir.1974) (Rolex's reliance upon [section 43(a) ] appears to be misplaced in view of the prominent display of 'Ricoh' on the challenged watch.); Bose Corp. v. Linear Design Labs, 467 F.2d 304, 310 (2d Cir.1972) ([T]here is hardly likelihood of confusion or palming off when the name of the manufacturer is clearly displayed.) (footnote omitted), even though the appearance of the junior user's name does not in all cases eliminate the possibility of consumer confusion, see Banff, 841 F.2d at 492 (Bloomingdale's attachment of its company name below its standard typestyle 'B Wear' mark does not offset the marks' similarity because the name is in very small letters and may actually increase the misappropriation by linking defendant's name to plaintiff's goodwill.) (citation omitted). 70 In this case, by far the most prominent feature of the Excedrin PM trade dress is the trade name Excedrin. At least as prominent on the Tylenol PM packaging is the trade name Tylenol. These trade names are the major features of otherwise ordinary boxes. The Tylenol trade name is displayed in the same typeface used on other Tylenol products. In fact, except for the color of the box and the presence of PM, the Tylenol PM trade dress is extremely similar to the trade dress of the other Tylenol analgesic products. The differences between the two trade dresses are therefore significant. 71 Despite the similarity between certain aspects of the two trade dresses, when taken as a whole, including the prominently displayed names, they are not similar in any manner that is likely to cause consumer confusion; in fact, the prominent presence of well known trade names goes far toward countering any suggestion of consumer confusion arising from any of the other Polaroid factors. 72