Opinion ID: 622599
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: People's United's Intent in Adopting the Mark

Text: Peoples Federal argues that the district court erred by requiring evidence of deliberate encroachment (or bad intent) to divert Peoples Federal's customers. It points out that [e]vidence of bad intent, . . . while potentially probative of likelihood of confusion, is simply not required in a trademark infringement case; moreover, 'a finding of good faith is no answer if likelihood of confusion is otherwise established.' Star Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AASTAR Mortg. Corp., 89 F.3d 5, 11 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting President & Trs. of Colby Coll. v. Colby Coll.-N.H., 508 F.2d 804, 811-12 (1st Cir. 1975)). However, in this case -- as noted throughout this opinion -- likelihood of confusion was not otherwise established. In addition, although bad intent is not almost eighty percent of respondents choosing Yes, the two banks names are too similar, to the question Will PeoplesBank be successful in its legal fight with People's United? Peoples Federal contends that this shows the public would be confused by the presence of another Peoples bank in Massachusetts. Putting aside the fact that the referenced poll used loaded questions to require predictions as to a litigation that is not related to the present case, thus undercutting its accuracy and relevance, we do not think the district court committed error, let alone clear error, by not referencing this poll in its opinion because its findings were adequately supported by other evidence. This proof of potential confusion is not strong enough that we would set aside the lower court's finding as clear error for failure to consider the same. Cf. Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 31 (1st Cir. 1989) (where plaintiffs' other evidence of confusion was sufficiently strong, lack of survey data as to public knowledge regarding the source of the goods in question did not fatally undercut plaintiffs' claims, as [they] were not bound to a particular form of evidence to prove confusion). -21- required for a finding of trademark infringement, the defendant's intent in adopting the mark is an appropriate consideration in the court's assessment of whether the public is likely to be confused about the actual source of the goods or services at issue. See, e.g., Boston Duck Tours, LP, 531 F.3d at 30 (absence of bad faith weighed against a finding of infringement); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812, 819 (1st Cir. 1987) (noting as relevant to infringement analysis that, while evidence did not indicate an intent to deceive customers, it did indicate that defendant chose Beetle mark not independently, but with an intent to benefit from [the plaintiff's] reputation). Here, the defendant created its mark and logo years before it entered the Eastern Massachusetts market.