Opinion ID: 75946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CLM's Entitlement to Injunctive Relief

Text: 21 The district court found that when ICE began selling counterfeit product, it caused a likelihood of confusion regarding the FAIR & WHITE mark and that subsequent sales by McHeileh/Ailatan added to the confusion. While the trademark laws could not provide a basis for relief unless there was a breach of contract, CLM established that ICE breached the Agreement and thus trademark law is applicable to claims of unauthorized use of the mark. Sterling Drug Inc. v. Bayer AG, 792 F.Supp. 1357, 1372 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y.1992). In order to succeed on the merits of a trademark infringement claim, CLM must show that the ICE used the mark in commerce without its consent and that the unauthorized use was likely to deceive, cause confusion, or result in mistake. McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir.1998). There can be no dispute that the parties' concurrent use of the FAIR & WHITE mark poses a substantial likelihood of confusion among consumers. See Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp. v. Mattress Madness, Inc., 841 F.Supp. 1339, 1346 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (confusion inevitable since parties are selling same products in the same channels of commerce under the guise of the identical Dial-A-Mattress mark). 22 The district court further decided that CLM demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable injury if injunctive relief was not granted. It is clear from the evidence that ICE and McHeileh/Ailatan were selling counterfeit FAIR & WHITE product in the United States. Furthermore, as stated by the district court, the threatened injury to CLM, by confusion in the market regarding the F&W Mark, outweighs any harm to ICE in preventing it from selling product supplied by third parties, particularly in light of the Court's finding that ICE is no longer the exclusive distributor. R3-247-34. 23 AFFIRMED.