Opinion ID: 4301604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Similarity of the Products

Text: Both parties manufacture high-end, center-console fishing boats of a similar size. This factor favors Yellowfin. D. The Similarity of the Parties’ Trade Channels and Customers Neither Yellowfin nor Barker Boatworks sells boats through a retail outlet; both sell directly to customers. This necessarily means that the parties operate in different trade channels, as a customer must contact either Yellowfin or Barker Boatworks directly to purchase a boat. The dissimilarity of trade channels, however, is mostly irrelevant given that Yellowfin’s primary theory of likelihood of confusion applies to potential consumers postsale. The two manufacturers compete in the same niche market and thus have similar customers. But having similar customers does not necessarily favor Yellowfin. These are customers in the market for a high-end, expensive fishing boat. As such, they are likely more discerning—and so less easily confused—than customers purchasing everyday products. See Fla. Int’l, 830 F.3d at 1256 (noting that “sophisticated consumers” of “complex goods” are less easily confused than “casual purchasers of small items”). We expand upon the effect that consumers’ 14 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 15 of 33 sophistication has on Yellowfin’s theory in our discussion of actual confusion below. E. The Similarity of Advertising Media Used by the Parties As to this factor, the District Court stated the following: Barker and Yellowfin concededly advertise in several of the same forums, including the magazines SaltWater Sportsman and Sport Fishing. Also, both companies attend the same boat shows, for example, Miami, Palm Beach, and Fort Lauderdale. The similarity of advertising forums might contribute to confusion, although the absence from the record of Barker advertisements prevents comparing the parties’ advertisements. See AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1542 (explaining that the “similarity of advertising” evaluates whether the parties advertise in similar forums and whether the advertisements appear similar). (Record citations omitted). In its brief, Yellowfin emphasizes the first part of this statement; Barker Boatworks’ brief emphasizes the latter part. This factor favors Yellowfin for purposes of summary judgment, as we may reasonably infer that similar advertising contributes, however little, to consumer confusion. See AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1542 (“If the plaintiff and defendant both use the same advertising media, a finding of likelihood of confusion is more probable.”). F. Barker’s Intent The District Court found that “the record contains no evidence that Barker copied Yellowfin’s design in an attempt to confuse a potential buyer.” Yellowfin disagrees, contending that the Court did not construe the record, as it must on summary judgment, in a way that takes “the plaintiff’s best case.” See Stephens v. 15 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 16 of 33 DeGiovanni, 852 F.3d 1298, 1313–14 (11th Cir. 2017). Yellowfin adds that a defendant’s intent is generally a credibility question that cannot be decided on summary judgment. More specifically, Yellowfin argues that because Barker had “significant business dealings” with Yellowfin and took customer information with him upon leaving Yellowfin, “an inference of intent readily arises.” See AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1543 n.61. Further, Yellowfin adds that to successfully compete in the same “niche market” as Yellowfin, Barker Boatworks copied Yellowfin’s sheer line, aware that the sheer line had garnered extensive favorable press.10 Finally, Yellowfin points out that an employee of Michael Peters, the marine architect Barker Boatworks employed to design its bay boat, met with Barker in June 2014 and left with design notes containing a notation to look at “24 Yellowfin.” The employee’s notes also contained several sketches of plans for the Barker boat, one of which was titled “Yellowfin 24.” All of this, Yellowfin contends, is enough to create a material factual issue as to intent. In response, Barker Boatworks points out that notes from the June 2014 meeting also show that Barker “did not care for the Yellowfin hull and sheer line appearance,” evidenced by his comment that Yellowfins look “[too] much offshore” and have “too much fla[ir].” Barker Boatworks adds that several 10 Yellowfin cites back to the magazine excerpts quoted supra. As discussed, these excerpts do little to prove the strength of Yellowfin’s sheer line as trade dress. 16 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 17 of 33 competing bay boats other than Yellowfin were also mentioned at the meeting. Yellowfin, Barker Boatworks contends, seeks to improperly infer intent from mere references to Yellowfin and from prior business dealings. Moreover, the District Court made no credibility finding because there was no dispute in the record about the meaning of any relevant testimony or the meeting notes. There is a difference between intentional copying and intentional copying with intent to cause confusion. See Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 716 F.2d 854, 859 n.13 (11th Cir. 1983). This distinction is an important one. If a defendant intentionally copies an aspect of the plaintiff’s product, but not with intent to confuse consumers, then the defendant’s intent has little bearing on the ultimate question: whether the allegedly infringing product is likely to confuse consumers. See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:110 (5th ed. 2017) (“[T]he only kind of intent that is relevant to the issue of likelihood of confusion is the intent to confuse.”). “Strictly, intent, or lack thereof, does not affect the eyes of the viewer.” Chrysler Corp. v. Silva, 118 F.3d 56, 59 n.3 (1st Cir. 1997). But when a defendant copies a design intending to cause confusion, a tenable inference may be drawn that this will cause confusion in fact; the defendant’s very action indicates that it expects consumer confusion. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 314 F.2d 149, 158 (9th Cir. 1963); McCarthy, supra, at § 23:110. In this latter instance, we may presume that 17 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 18 of 33 the defendant “adopt[ed] a mark or design with the intent of deriving benefit from another person’s mark” and deny the defendant’s summary judgment motion. Brooks, 716 F.2d at 860 n.13 (internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, proof of intentional copying alone is not conclusive on the likelihood of confusion issue. Id. The plaintiff must put forth some evidence showing that the defendant’s copying was done with intent to confuse consumers. Viewing the evidence in Yellowfin’s favor allows us, at most, to infer that Barker Boatworks intended to copy some aspects of Yellowfin’s boats in order to construct a worthy competitor in a niche market. That is Yellowfin’s “best case.” See Stephens, 852 F.3d at 1313–14. But evidence that “a junior user copies a competitor’s product design because it sells better and consumers seem to like it . . . is not evidence of an intent to confuse.” McCarthy, supra, at § 8:19. The District Court properly concluded that Yellowfin put forth no evidence showing Barker’s intent to copy Yellowfin’s sheer line in order to deceive consumers as to the source of Barker Boatworks’ boats—i.e., to cause consumer confusion. G. Actual Confusion Finally, the District Court found that Yellowfin failed to present any evidence of actual confusion. The Court stated that Yellowfin did not “identify a customer who mistakenly bought a Barker instead of a Yellowfin.” Further, the Court noted, the high price tags attached to center-console fishing boats likely 18 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 19 of 33 encourage consumers to exercise a high degree of care when purchasing a boat. Therefore, a similar sheer line will not reasonably cause a customer to mistakenly purchase a Barker instead of a Yellowfin. The Court then briefly addressed postsale confusion, stating that postsale confusion “requires a showing that the junior product is inferior in craftsmanship to the senior product.” The Court noted that Yellowfin produced only an “unsubstantiated boast” by Nagler in his deposition testimony that Yellowfins are “far” superior in quality to Barkers. 11 On the other hand, several former Yellowfin customers—who had first-hand experience of Yellowfin’s craftsmanship and were likely to investigate that of Barker Boatworks before investing in another boat—bought a Barker. Thus, because Yellowfin did not present evidence sufficient to show Barker boats were of a lesser quality, the Court halted its analysis of postsale confusion. Yellowfin’s appellate brief initially presents a point-of-sale-type theory of confusion, arguing that Nagler, in his deposition, identified four potential customers whose business he lost to Barker and further maintained that “there’s probably another handful.” But, as the District Court pointed out, Nagler did not attribute these lost sales to confusion, much less confusion derived from the 11 Elsewhere in his deposition, Nagler stated that he had never ridden in a Barker boat but that he “assume[d]” Barker boats were “pretty close” to Yellowfins in quality. 19 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 20 of 33 similarity of the sheer lines specifically. 12 Rather, it was general similarity in the boats’ designs that led to the loss of sales. Perhaps recognizing the weaknesses of a point-of-sale theory of confusion, Yellowfin ultimately contends that, primarily, “[t]his is a post-sale confusion case.” That is, “the point at which the likelihood of confusion would be most likely to occur is after the sale of a Barker boat, when the relevant audience is the ‘purchasing public.’” Yellowfin argues that the District Court erred by imposing a requirement that Yellowfin prove Barker boats to be of inferior quality. Because this is not a threshold requirement to proving postsale confusion, Yellowfin continues, the Court never addressed its postsale-confusion theory. If it had, Yellowfin concludes, it could not have granted summary judgment because there is a triable issue of fact about whether Barker’s sheer line is likely to confuse potential purchasers in the postsale context. Boiled down, Yellowfin’s theory is this: its unique sheer line is instantly recognizable to potential purchasers. Upon seeing a Barker with a similar sheer line, potential purchasers become confused—they mistakenly believe that the boat they see is a Yellowfin or is associated with Yellowfin. This, in turn, has damaged 12 In his deposition, Nagler summarily stated that Barker’s copying of Yellowfin’s sheer line specifically caused the lost customers. But, immediately after making this statement, Nagler also attributed the lost customers to Barker giving customers a lower price than Yellowfin could offer and to “the relationship that [a former Yellowfin customer] had with [Kevin Barker].” Either way, he did not testify that confusion caused the lost sales. 20 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 21 of 33 the goodwill associated with Yellowfin’s brand and has diverted consumers from Yellowfin, causing lost profits. “Actual consumer confusion is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.” AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1543. We review this factor holistically; there is no precise number of instances of actual confusion sufficient to establish the factor. Id. Although it takes “very little evidence to establish the existence of the actual confusion factor,” id. at 1544, the evidence adduced must be more than “nominal,” Tana, 611 F.3d at 779. 13 Further, “[l]ikelihood of confusion is synonymous with ‘probable’ confusion—it is not sufficient if confusion is merely ‘possible.’” McCarthy, supra, at § 23:3 (citing Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber & Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352, 1355 n.2 (11th Cir. 1983)). That a junior user’s trade dress merely calls to mind that of the senior user, moreover, is not an infringement. Id. at § 23:5. Yellowfin is correct that this Court’s precedent does not require a threshold showing that the defendant’s product is inferior in quality. And we do not impose such a requirement today. 14 That notwithstanding, the record is devoid of evidence 13 The Tana Court found “nominal” an affidavit by a patron of plaintiff’s restaurant stating he patronized defendant’s restaurant because similarity in the restaurants’ names led him to believe they were affiliated, and defendant’s admission that customers had twice inquired about an affiliation between the restaurants. 611 F.3d at 779. It accordingly affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Id. at 783. 14 The District Court’s error on this point does not necessitate a remand to further address Yellowfin’s postsale-confusion theory. See Dippin’ Dots, 369 F.3d at 1207–08 (stating that a 21 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 22 of 33 indicating a probability of postsale confusion among potential purchasers.15 Yellowfin effectively argues that the District Court should have inferred from the “district court’s failure to consider all the factors relevant to the issue of whether two marks are confusingly similar does not necessarily constitute reversible error” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We note that the quality of a defendant’s product is relevant to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The “classic situation” of postsale confusion occurs when “an observer sees the defendant’s inferior product and because of similar . . . trade dress, mistakenly thinks it is a product of plaintiff, damaging plaintiff’s reputation and image.” McCarthy, supra, at § 23:7; see United States v. Torkington, 812 F.2d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating, with regard to counterfeit goods, that a “trademark holder’s ability to use its mark to symbolize its reputation is harmed when potential purchasers of its goods see unauthentic goods and identify these goods with the trademark holder”). This damage to reputation and image is naturally mitigated when an observer mistakenly associates a product of similar quality with the plaintiff. Thus, although Yellowfin’s lack of proof of the Barker boats’ inferiority is not dispositive of the actual confusion factor on summary judgment, it raises the question of what, if any, negative effect postsale confusion could have on Yellowfin’s reputation and image. We need not answer that question here. 15 Yellowfin proffered a survey to support its position on likelihood of confusion. The District Court, however, excluded the survey due to several methodological flaws. That ruling is not an issue on appeal. Nagler’s own testimony, moreover, does not support Yellowfin’s postsale-confusion theory. Consider the following exchange at his deposition: Q. Okay. Have there been any – anybody that’s come to you with confusion between Barker and Yellowfin? A. Several people have come to me with discussions about how [Barker] copied our styling and our sheer line of the boat and, you know, felt it was wrong. True, you know, did they come in confused between the two brands? Well, they know who Yellowfin is. They don’t know who Barker is, but they know when they see that [Barker] boat on the water, it looks like a Yellowfin. Q. And who was that? A. Customers call us all the time, people on the Internet. There’s plenty of documentation all over the Internet. Go to any of the forums. Nagler then identified specific customers who expressed to him that Barker copied Yellowfin’s style or stated that they could not tell the two boats apart. When asked if any customer was “confused,” Nagler responded, “I would think copying and confusion [are] the same.” Nagler then stated, “If you took the sticker off the back of [a Barker], you would probably be confused.” 22 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 23 of 33 strength of its trade dress alone—which, as discussed, is suspect—actual confusion in the postsale context. But, without any evidence corroborating its postsale confusion theory outlined above, Yellowfin cannot defeat summary judgment. See Libman Co. v. Vining Indus., Inc., 69 F.3d 1360, 1363 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A finding of likely confusion can no more be based on pure conjecture or a fetching narrative alone than any other finding on an issue on which the proponent bears the burden of proof.”). Indeed, the market in which Yellowfin competes and the potential purchasers therein make its theory of postsale confusion unlikely. Yellowfin repeatedly mentions that it and Barker Boatworks compete in the same “niche” market of center-console fishing boats. We may infer that potential purchasers of products in this market are relatively sophisticated. See Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Int’l, Inc., 730 F.3d 494, 510–11 (6th Cir. 2013) After this, Nagler clarified that Yellowfin’s claim was limited to the copying of its sheer line and agreed that several features of the Barker boat differed from Yellowfin’s boats. To the extent it is offered for the truth it asserts, Nagler’s testimony relaying the statements of the “[s]everal people” who expressed to him that Barker copied Yellowfin is inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Regardless, nothing in this exchange indicates that people were confused by Barker’s sheer line. Nagler testified in effect that people believe Barker copied Yellowfin’s boat styling, that confusion would be caused if the logo were removed from a Barker, and that the boats have many dissimilar features. Copying is not the same as confusion, as Nagler suggests. And Yellowfin presents no evidence showing that potential purchasers have observed Barker boats stripped of their logo. At best, Nagler’s testimony could be construed to support the proposition that seeing a Barker might call the Yellowfin brand to a consumer’s mind. This, however, is not tantamount to confusion. McCarthy, supra, at § 23:5. 23 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 24 of 33 (noting the relationship between a product’s complexity and price and the sophistication of its consumers). In fact, Yellowfin’s theory of postsale confusion depends upon sophisticated consumers. Yellowfin recognizes that that “every bay boat has a sloping sheer line as a key element of its design.” (Emphasis removed). But in designing a sloping sheer line, Yellowfin posits, a designer employs “creativity with highly nuanced refinements” so that his sheer line will differ from the others—“that is precisely what Mr. Nagler did in designing the Yellowfin sheer line.” A lay consumer unfamiliar with bay boats would be unlikely to notice the “highly nuanced refinements” of Yellowfin’s sheer line and match the sheer line with the brand. Only a discerning, sophisticated consumer would be able to do so. Yellowfin’s theory thus holds water only in a scenario involving a sophisticated potential purchaser. However, without any corroborating evidence, it is unreasonable to infer that this discerning potential purchaser—familiar enough with the crowded bay-boat market to distinguish Yellowfin’s sloping sheer line from the numerous others— would see a Barker and become confused despite the Barker’s prominent and distinct logo, differing hull, and other dissimilar features. See id. at 509–11 (stating that the “starkly different” logos on two expensive products and the “the high degree of care presumably exercised by the [products’] sophisticated consumers” compels the conclusion that the plaintiff, as a matter of law, failed to 24 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 25 of 33 raise a triable issue as to likelihood of confusion). Perhaps the Barker sheer line would “call[] to mind” that of a Yellowfin, but that is not an infringement. See McCarthy, supra, at § 23:5. Yellowfin has failed to establish that the Barker sheer line has actually confused potential purchasers in the postsale context.