Opinion ID: 2051720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background law concerning infringement.

Text: In prior decisions, we stated, confusion of names in business is sufficient ground for the issuance of an injunction. Atlas Assur. Co. v. Atlas Ins. Co., 138 Iowa 228, 233, 112 N.W. 232, 233 (1907). We have also stated that an injunction will lie to prevent not only the use by another of the identical name, but the use of a name which, by reason of similarity, will tend to create confusion and enable the later user to obtain the business of the first. Iowa Auto Market, 197 Iowa at 423, 197 N.W. at 323 (emphasis added). Courts from other jurisdictions have adopted a similar standard for determining whether a trademark has been infringed whether there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers. See SquirtCo v. Seven-Up, 628 F.2d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir.1980); Phipps Bros., 508 N.W.2d at 886; Madison Reprographics, 552 N.W.2d at 444-45. This likelihood of confusion standard is either based on pertinent language of the Lanham Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(b), [6] the federal law governing trademark infringement claims, or upon language of section 20 of the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition. [7] While our prior cases implicitly required a finding that use of a similar business trade name or trademark constitutes infringement when a likelihood of confusion exists among consumers, we now follow courts from other jurisdictions and officially adopt the likelihood of confusion standard. Thus, once a plaintiff has proved that it has a valid common-law trademark by showing that the name or designation it seeks to protect is distinctive, either inherently so or through secondary meaning, it then must prove that defendant's use of a similar designation will cause a likelihood of confusion among consumers. See Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition § 20 cmt. d. Following this analysis, our next task is to consider whether the district court properly concluded that Commercial Savings failed to prove that Commercial Federal's use of the name COMMERCIAL is likely to cause confusion among consumers concerning the goods, services or business provided by plaintiff and defendant.