Opinion ID: 178211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Three Distributor Declarations

Text: Tenneco next points to declarations given by three of its distributors. These declarations state that each of the distributors personally associate the “171” product numbers with Monroe products based upon the distributor’s industry experience. Each of the declarations is properly made under penalty of perjury and is admissible. None of the declarations contains any statements about what Tenneco’s ultimate consumers believe. Tenneco argues that the district court improperly ignored these declarations and that they create a genuine issue of material fact. We find that the declarations are relevant, albeit weak, evidence of secondary meaning, and the district court erred by not considering them. “Direct consumer testimony ‘need not take the form of explicit testimony from consumers stating that “I care that X produced this product.” ’ ” Herman Miller, 270 F.3d at 312 (quoting Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 294 (7th Cir. 1998)). The plaintiff in Herman Miller, Herman Miller, Inc., was the producer and copyright-holder of several world-famous furniture designs. Id. Herman Miller sued Palazzetti Imports for infringing the copyright of its famous Eames lounge chair and ottoman. The district court granted summary judgment for Palazzetti, and Herman Miller appealed. Herman Miller had no direct consumer testimony to prove secondary meaning, but relied on “a variety of circumstantial testimony indicating a link between 11 Nos. 08-2276/09-1920, Tenneco v. Kingdom Auto Parts Herman Miller and the Eames lounge chair and ottoman in the mind of the consuming public for modern furniture.” Id. The circumstantial evidence was both substantial and impressive, including affidavits and supporting evidence from historians, design experts, authors, past and present employees, and various celebrities who all associated the Eames lounge chair with Herman Miller. Id. We noted that in Marketing Displays, Inc. v. TrafFix Devices, Inc., 200 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 532 U.S. 23 (2001), this court relied on the testimony of former employees of both the plaintiff and defendant in the absence of direct consumer testimony in a trade dress claim. Herman Miller, 270 F.3d at 312 (citing TrafFix, 200 F.3d at 937). We found this evidence to be a factor in Herman Miller’s favor, but not dispositive. We reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment only after analyzing all seven factors in the secondary meaning test and finding that Herman Miller had presented sufficient evidence of secondary meaning to create a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 315 (“Taken together, Herman Miller has produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact . . . .”). Tenneco argues that this court should follow the Seventh Circuit’s approach from Thomas & Betts, where that court found that the mark-holder’s direct consumer evidence created a genuine issue of material fact. 138 F.3d at 294. There, the mark-holder presented declarations from “[f]our distributors and two consultants, all of whom have considerable experience in the electrical industry, [which] state unequivocally . . . that they recognize and associate the oval shape . . . with T & B.” Id. The court found that because T & B sold its products primarily through distributors, the relevant class of consumers consisted of both ultimate consumers and dealers. The Seventh Circuit reversed 12 Nos. 08-2276/09-1920, Tenneco v. Kingdom Auto Parts the district court’s grant of summary judgment and held that these declarations created a genuine issue of material fact. Id. Applying Herman Miller to the case before us, we find that the district court erred by not considering the three distributor declarations. In Herman Miller, the court considered volumes of circumstantial evidence assembled by the plaintiff, including affidavits from nonparty experts in the relevant field. The district court should have considered the declarations of the mechanics and distributors who have extensive experience in the industry. We decline, however, to find, following Thomas’ approach, that the declarations create a genuine issue of material fact. While the court in Herman Miller did quote from Thomas in its discussion of direct consumer testimony, it did not cite to Thomas’ holding, nor did it determine based on this factor alone that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to secondary meaning. Instead, the court analyzed all seven factors in the light of all the applicable evidence before coming to the conclusion that the district court had erred. Herman Miller, 270 F.3d at 315–16. This conclusion is supported by our treatment of similar evidence in “likelihood of confusion” cases. In Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc., the district court had rejected intermediate vendor testimony as irrelevant, but we reversed the court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that evidence regarding “point of sale” consumers was not the only relevant evidence of confusion. 78 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 1996). Similarly, in Esercizio we found that the protections of the Lanham Act extended beyond preventing customer confusion at the point of sale. 944 F.2d at 1244. We have also held that the evidence of three or four selected individuals is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to actual confusion. 13 Nos. 08-2276/09-1920, Tenneco v. Kingdom Auto Parts Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100, 1110 (6th Cir. 1991). In Homeowners Group, the district court granted summary judgment and we affirmed, finding that “the existence of only a handful of instances of actual confusion after a significant time or a significant degree of concurrent sales under the respective marks may even lead to an inference that no likelihood of confusion exists.” Id.; see also Leelanau, 502 F.3d at 519 (finding a few stories from customers insufficient to demonstrate clear error after a bench trial); Champions Golf, 78 F.3d at 1120 (finding that “four incidents is not a considerable quantum of evidence of actual confusion”). These cases, together with Herman Miller, support the conclusion that the declarations are relevant, but very weak, evidence in Tenneco’s favor. The declarations are insufficient by themselves to create a genuine issue of material fact.