Opinion ID: 793809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Which party first affixed the mark to goods sold.

Text: 64 3. Which party's name appeared on packaging and promotional materials in conjunction with the mark. 65 4. Which party exercised control over the nature and quality of goods on which the mark appeared. 66 5. To which party did customers look as standing behind the goods, e.g., which party received complaints for defects and made appropriate replacement or refund. 67 6. Which party paid for advertising and promotion of the trademarked product. 68 Id. (footnotes omitted). 69 We conclude that this approach is inapplicable in cases where initial ownership has already been established and an express assignment is lacking. In TMT North America, Inc. v. Magic Touch GmbH, the Seventh Circuit held that although such factors may be appropriate where initial ownership of a mark is in dispute, once initial ownership is established, a multifactor test would be inappropriate to divest that ownership — a trademark owner may lose its rights by assignment or by abandonment, but not by some nebulous balancing test. 124 F.3d 876, 884 n. 4 (7th Cir.1997). We agree. The Lanham Act expressly provides how ownership may be divested through abandonment, see 15 U.S.C. § 1127, and how ownership of registered marks may be divested through assignment, see id. § 1060. To follow a divestive balancing test where initial ownership is already established, and where assignment or abandonment cannot be shown, would flout the Lanham Act by permitting a finding of abandonment under another name, even when abandonment cannot be established under the statute. Considering that abandonment must be strictly proved, United States Jaycees, 639 F.2d at 139, we will not permit it to be found under a different name through a balancing test. 70 Moreover, even if we were to apply the contractual/consumer expectations approach, we could not conclude that ownership was divested as a matter of law. Regarding the parties' contractual expectations, there was no express assignment. 16 Even if we turned to consumer expectations, those factors would not point towards Hybrids as a matter of law because: (1) Partnership created the mark; (2) Partnership first affixed the mark to goods; (3) Partnership's name initially appeared on packaging and promotional materials, and later on, Hybrids' name (and perhaps Partnership on occasion as well); (4) Partnership's quality control is a disputed issue of material fact; (5) Hybrids may have become the party to whom consumers eventually looked as standing behind the goods but that again appears to be a question of fact; and (6) the parties dispute the nature and significance of any reimbursement by Partnership to Hybrids for marketing expenses. Thus, even if we applied a balancing test, numerous disputes of material fact would prevent it from supporting the grant of summary judgment. 17