Opinion ID: 6928544
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Ashbyweb’s Intent

Text: When an alleged infringer knowingly adopts a mark similar to another’s, courts will presume an intent to deceive the public. Id. The district court found that OAG failed to prove that Ashbyweb knowingly adopted a name similar to OAG’s mark. OAG argues that the district court erred in placing on it the burden of proving Ashby-web’s intent to deceive consumers. OAG cites E. & J. Gallo Winery, which held that “[a] party claiming trademark infringement need not demonstrate that the alleged in-fringer intended to deceive consumers.” 967 F.2d at 1293. The argument is misplaced. OAG confuses the burden of proof with the necessary elements of trademark infringement. A party claiming trademark infringement need not prove intent to deceive because intent is not a necessary element of trademark infringement. Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1219 (holding that the absence of such evidence is not determinative). Gallo stands for the proposition that a plaintiff can prevail without proving intent to deceive. If a plaintiff can prove intent, however, he is likely to prevail because the courts then presume that the public will be deceived. Gallo, 967 F.2d at 1293.