Opinion ID: 2816581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant’s Infringing Use of “BMF”

Text: Defendant BMF Wheels is a company founded in 2007 by Defendant Brock Weld. Defendants sell aftermarket wheels to customers, with an emphasis on trucks. Defendants’ first use of the term “BMF Wheels” in commerce was October 1, 2007. Weld testified at trial that he came up with the name “BMF Wheels” in the summer of 2006 as he was discussing plans for the new company with a colleague. They took inspiration from Weld’s wallet, which bore the same indelicate phrase as the wallet from Pulp Fiction. According to his testimony, Weld had never seen Plaintiff’s BMF mark and was not aware of its existence. Weld considered and rejected a number of mock-ups before settling on a final logo. The one he chose bears a striking similarity to Plaintiff’s BMF logo. As with Plaintiff’s logo, the three letters “BMF” are set in capitalized, san-serif typeface, with the same forward slant and sharply contrasting outlines in the color scheme of black, white and red. In some iterations of the logo, “Wheels” is set in smaller typeface immediately under “BMF.” Nos. 14-1357/1608/1939 CFE Racing Products v. BMF Wheels, et al. Page 6 Weld applied for trademark registration of “BMF Wheels” in July 2006. He testified that in preparing his application, he searched for “BMF” both online and in the PTO website, but did not find Plaintiff’s logo. The “BMF Wheels” mark was registered to Weld without restriction based on style, font, size, or color on March 18, 2008. As of the time of trial, Defendants advertised nationally using the “BMF Wheels” logo. Weld eventually filed two more applications for trademarks involving the initials “BMF”—one for “BMF” alone, filed in July 2009, and another for “BMF Offroad,” filed in December 2010. Each application initially proposed a long list of aftermarket parts, including two dozen suspension lift components, tires, and automotive accessories like fender flares and runner boards. As will be discussed in more detail below, in each of these later applications the examining attorney with the PTO refused the application based on conflict with Plaintiff’s “BMF” mark. Defendants abandoned the attempt to register “BMF Offroad,” but continued to use the mark in their online marketing and in their catalogue. Meanwhile, they pursued the “BMF” application as to tires only, and obtained registration on the eve of trial. After Defendants stipulated that they would not seek to introduce materials relating to the “BMF” mark for tires, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude the PTO file and registration related to that mark. C. Discovery of the Similar Brands and Anecdotal Confusion Defendants first learned of Plaintiff’s “BMF” mark not through Weld’s trademark applications, but in 2008 when a former employee approached Weld and his business partner with concern that another company that was “ripping off” their logo. Another employee expressed similar concern. Weld’s brother also sent Weld a text about Plaintiff’s “BMF” logo, asking if he had ever seen it before. Foltz did not learn of BMF Wheels until 2011, when the company and its similar logo came to his attention as a result of a comment made to his girlfriend at a “mini-Sprint” race for kids that Plaintiff was sponsoring on the West Coast. Around the same time, Plaintiff’s marketing director Larry Gadette received a call from a man named Michael Locke asking about Nos. 14-1357/1608/1939 CFE Racing Products v. BMF Wheels, et al. Page 7 an order for BMF valve covers to go with a set of BMF wheels.2 Gadette looked up the “BMF Wheels” logo and was immediately struck by the similarity. As he described at trial, They are black, extended font, bold-faced logos with red outlines and the components of them are strikingly similar. They both have got double outlines. They have both got white borders. They are both based on the same derivative of the same font. (R. 108, Gadette Tr. Testimony, PageID 2358.) Gadette took a screen shot of Defendants’ logo and placed it over Plaintiff’s logo to compare the two. He testified that “you couldn’t have happen chanced on something that was closer,” with an outcome resulting in “fractions of a degree of skew” and “fractions of an inch in width and height difference.” (Id. at 2359.) D. Advertising and Marketing Channels The BMF Wheels advertising that Foltz and Gadette eventually found was not to Foltz’s liking. Some of Defendants’ ads featured scantily clad women and firearms. One promotion was a “BMF Wheels Girl Contest,” in which women sent in highly sexualized pictures of themselves in proximity to BMF Wheels. BMF Wheels also sells product lines with allusions to drugs, such as Rehab and Novokane. Foltz testified that he found this sort of advertising distasteful, and that he did not want that image for his company and the BMF brand. Gadette, though clarifying that he personally was “not opposed to scantily clad women,” explained that Plaintiff would avoid marketing like that as an economic matter, because some portion of potential consumers may be offended by such material, and the company has no reason to lose their business. (R. 108 at 2322-23.) Both parties sell their products through nationwide third-party distributors; for Defendants, relationships with distributors account for the “vast majority” of their sales. (R.108, Weld Tr. Testimony, PageID 2524.) Although the two companies use different distributors, the distributors used by both sell a broad range of aftermarket parts, including wheels and cylinder heads. Plaintiff markets its BMF line at an aftermarket trade show called “PRI” that Foltz described as showcasing “[j]ust about every aftermarket part,” including wheels. (R. 107 at 2258.) Defendants attend the other major trade show for aftermarket products, SEMA. 2 Mr. Locke, it turns out, worked at a company called BMF Customs, where he built custom motorcycles. Nos. 14-1357/1608/1939 CFE Racing Products v. BMF Wheels, et al. Page 8 Though the companies advertise through similar means—including print ads in automotive related magazines, sponsorship of racing events, and commercial websites—there has been little actual overlap to date. Plaintiff’s ads have appeared in half a dozen car-related magazines, including Carcraft, Super Chevy, Chevy High Performance, Drag Illustrated, Drag News, National Dragster, and RPM Magazine, while Defendants’ ads have run in publications like Truckin’ Magazine and Diesel Power. Although Defendants’ marketing emphasizes trucks, their advertising materials also include muscle cars, jeeps, cross-overs, and utility vehicles. Both companies maintain their own websites; Defendants also market their products through social media. Both companies advertise their brand by sponsoring races, and in fact both have sponsored events at the same venue in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Plaintiff stopped advertising its BMF line in 2011 after it learned of BMF Wheels. Foltz explained the company’s decision to pull back the advertising of the product in light of Defendant’s competing brand, testifying: “there is no sense to spend – you can spend millions of dollars on advertising, and to compete against the same image out there just doesn’t make sense to me to do that.” (R. 107. at 2258-59.)