Opinion ID: 771716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Housemarks and the Disclaimer

Text: 85 Having found the marks only somewhat distinct, the District Court further concluded that Victoria's Secret's use of its housemark and disclaimer renders the marks dissimilar. 10 As the District Court recognized, affixing a well-known housemark like that of Victoria's Secret can help diminish the likelihood of confusion. See A&H IV, 57 F. Supp. 2d at 168. We have previously acknowledged the importance of housemarks in comparing the overall impression of two marks. A&H III, 166 F.3d at 195. In our previous decision, A&H III, we noted the relevance of the fact that both The Miracle Bra and Miraclesuit were sold with housemarks. See id. at 195. 86 Although A&H contends that Victoria's Secret's housemark should not have been a part of the similarity of marks analysis, the consideration of the effect of such marks has wide support in the case law. Use of a strong, well-known mark as a part of a composite name reduces the likelihood that the remainder of the composite name will create a commercial impression distinct from that mark. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Koury Corp., 776 F. Supp. 240, 247 (E.D.N.C. 1991); see also W. W. W. Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 573 (2d Cir. 1993) ([W]hen a similar mark is used in conjunction with a company name, the likelihood of confusion may be lessened.); Astra Pharm. Prods, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1205 (1st Cir. 1983) ([O]therwise similar marks are not likely to be confused where used in conjunction with the clearly displayed name and/or logo of the manufacturer.); Henri's Food Prods Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352, 355-56 (7th Cir. 1983) (Yet even Kraft agrees that a prominent housemark may also tend to lessen confusion.). But see Frehling Enters., Inc. v. International Select Group, Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 1999) (adding brand name did not lessen likelihood of confusion for marks of otherwise striking similarity); A.J. Canfield Co. v. Vess Beverages, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1081, 1091 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (Vess's use of its own VESS housemark in conjunction with Chocolate Fudge is not a defense to Canfield's infringement claim, for the use of another's trademark constitutes infringement with or without the use of the infringer's housemark.), aff'd, 796 F.2d 903 (7th Cir. 1986). 87 Furthermore, and most importantly, the District Court concluded that the disclaimer used by Victoria's Secret create[d] a distinction between the two marks. Therefore, it held that there was no similarity solely based on the presumption that Defendants will continue to use the disclaimer when marketing The Miracle Bra swimwear. A&H IV, 57 F. Supp. 2d at 169. The court grounded its finding on the fact that 88 [a]lthough the positioning varied, the disclaimer often appeared in dark, black type against a light background at the lower left corner of the actual page on which The Miracle Bra Swimwear Collection was featured in the catalog, just above the telephone number for placing an order. The President of VS Catalogue stated that since there are only a few seconds in which to capture a consumer's attention, placement near the telephone number is particularly appropriate. 89 Id. (citations omitted). The disclaimer, the court concluded, tips the balance and makes it unlikely that consumers will be confused by the marks themselves. 11 90 A&H argues that disclaimers cannot be considered when determining likelihood of confusion, relying heavily on United States Jaycees v. Philadelphia Jaycees, 639 F.2d 134, 142 (3d Cir. 1981), in which we held that an injunction requiring an infringing organization to add the word Philadelphia to its use of the word Jaycees was too narrow a remedy for a Lanham Act violation. However, Jaycees does not control for two reasons. First, the addition of a geographical term, unlike the use of a housemark, is unlikely to vitiate confusion, as one could easily conclude that the Philadelphia Jaycees was a subgroup of the larger national organization. In this case, the contest is not between Miraclesuit and Philadelphia Miraclesuit, a situation that would probably cause confusion, but rather is between two different names, one of which has a prominent disclaimer highlighting the difference. Second, our decision in Jaycees addressed the propriety of a remedy, and was premised on a finding of a Lanham Act violation, whereas in this case, we analyze the disclaimer and housemark to determine whether there was any violation at all. 91 In sum, the District Court committed no legal error in considering the disclaimer. We are also satisfied that the District Court committed no factual error in concluding that Victoria's Secret's disclaimer helped to dispel potential consumer confusion between the Miraclesuit and The Miracle Bra swimwear. 92