Opinion ID: 669095
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intent of AT & T in Adopting the Term Universal

Text: 26 AT & T selected the word Universal to describe its new combination calling and retail credit card after several employees suggested the word in a name game contest and after conducting consumer reaction studies. In accordance with AT & T's normal operating procedures, AT & T's in-house trademark counsel then conducted a trademark search of the word universal. Her search turned up approximately 200 registered marks using the word universal, including UMC's marks. She analyzed UMC's marks in their entirety, concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion, and advised AT & T business personnel that the word universal was available, but that its use posed a risk because the word was widely used and because AT & T was particularly vulnerable to complaints of infringement because we are AT & T. 27 The district court concluded that the record is void of any evidence that AT & T chose the term 'Universal' with the intent of copying UMC's marks or confusing the public as to the sponsorship or affiliation of its card. On appeal, UMC alleges that the facts surrounding AT & T's adoption of the word Universal raise a genuine issue of material fact as to AT & T's intent. We disagree. Although the deliberate adoption of a similar mark may lead to an inference of intent to pass off goods as those of another which in turn supports a finding of likelihood of confusion, Beer Nuts II, 805 F.2d at 927, mere knowledge [of a similar mark] should not foreclose further inquiry, GTE Corp. v. Williams, 904 F.2d 536, 541 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 998, 111 S.Ct. 557, 112 L.Ed.2d 564 (1990). The proper focus [remains] whether defendant had the intent to derive benefit from the reputation or goodwill of plaintiff. Jordache, 828 F.2d at 1485 (internal quotations omitted). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to UMC, there are absolutely no facts to support an inference that AT & T adopted the word Universal with the intent to derive benefit from UMC's marks. AT & T's in-house trademark counsel undoubtedly knew about UMC's federally registered marks and that UMC and other owners of the mark might challenge AT & T's use of the word universal. However, in the larger factual context of this case, this is simply not enough. Indeed, the fact that AT & T has spent more than $60 million in promoting its card strongly suggests that AT & T is relying on its own publicity and reputation, and not on that of UMC. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., 485 F.Supp. 1185, 1201 (S.D.N.Y.1979), aff'd, 636 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir.1980). 28