Document: 543 U.S. 111 KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC.v.LASTING IMPRESSION I, INC., ET AL. No. 03-409. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 5, 2004. Decided December 8, Petitioner Permanent Make-Up, Inc., and respondents (collectively Lasting) all use the term "micro color" (as one word or two, singular plural) in marketing permanent cosmetic makeup. The accepts KP's claim that it has used single-word version since 1990 1991. In 1992, Lasting registered a trademark included words "Micro Colors" under 15 U. S. C. § 1051, and, 1999, registration became incontestable, 1065. When demanded stop using "microcolor," sued for declaratory relief. counterclaimed, alleging, inter alia, had infringed Lasting's trademark. responded by asserting statutory affirmative defense fair use, 1115(b)(4). Finding conceded "microcolor" only to describe its goods not as mark, District held was acting fairly good faith because undisputedly employed continuously from before adopted mark. Without enquiring whether practice likely cause consumer confusion, court concluded made out 1115(b)(4) entered summary judgment on infringement claim. Reversing, Ninth Circuit ruled erred addressing without delving into matter possible confusion about origin goods. did pointedly address burden proof, but appears have placed show absence such confusion. Held: A party raising does negate any likelihood complained will confuse consumers services affected. Pp. 117-124. (a) Although 1115(b) makes an incontestable "conclusive evidence . registrant's exclusive right mark," also subjects plaintiff's success "proof defined section 1114." Section 1114(1) turn requires showing defendant's actual is "likely mistake, deceive" question, see, e.g., Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, 505 763, 780. Thus, plaintiff claiming mark must part prima facie case. This be kept mind when reading 1115(b)(4), which provides whose "use charged otherwise than descriptive services." It evident (1) places proving (that is, infringement) charging even relying registration, (2) Congress said nothing setting elements therefore takes long stretch entails plausible would 1114's phrase requirement markholder relied 1115(b)(4)'s "used fairly" give defendant See, e. g., Russello States, 464 16, 23. Congress's failure say anything this point almost certainly oversight, House Trademarks Subcommittee refused forward proposal expressly providing deceive public element defense. argues unpersuasively oblique incorporation likelihood-of-confusion test developed common law unfair competition. While cases Baglin Cusenier Co., 221 580, are consistent with taking account consideration deciding fair, they cannot read make assessment alone dispositive provide entirely. Finally, look at typical course litigation action points up incoherence placing nonconfusion defendant. If succeeds making case, including may offer rebutting undercut force element, raise bar relief if case sound, do both. no sense affirmatively succeed some (like confusion); needs leave factfinder unpersuaded carried own point. Nor plus faith, merely entitle judgment, not. 117-121. (b) Since rests plaintiff, freestanding need unlikely, recognizes (contrary Circuit's view) possibility compatible use. improvident go further here, more take beyond subject. Because rule pertinence degree defense, pass upon Government's position demands accurately. Accuracy assessing proceedings below raised occasion evaluate other concerns courts might pick relevant — commercial justification strength door closed. 121-123. (c) reads erroneously requiring shoulder issue. P. 124. 328 F. 3d 1061, vacated remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, SCALIA, joined footnotes 4 BREYER, footnote 6. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Michael Machat argued filed briefs petitioner. Patricia A. Millett States amicus curiae urging reversal. With her brief were former Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Hungar, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Yang, John M. Whealan, Cynthia Lynch, Nancy Slutter. Beth Brinkmann respondents. Charles H. Wu, Mark Cheung, Drew Days III, Edward W. Gray, Jr., Seth Galanter, Thomas McCarthy.* JUSTICE SOUTER Court.* 1 question here infringement, We hold 2 * Each sells makeup, mixture pigment liquid injection skin camouflage injuries modify nature's dispensations, each selling product. claims 1991 advertising flyers bottles. Respondents Impression licensee, MCN International, (Lasting, simplicity), deny began early, we accept allegation true present purposes; Appeals Courts took so, disputed facts our resolution issue.1 applied Patent Trademark Office (PTO) 1051 consisting white letters separated green within black square.2 PTO 1993, 1999 incontestable. 3 produced 10-page brochure large, stylized typeface, provoking demand term. Instead, Central California, seeking, ground, language claimed.3 among things, sought counterclaim, based After finding undisputed showed time two-word, plural variant See Case SA CV 00-276-GLT (EEx) (May 2001), pp. 8-9, App. Pet. Cert. 29a-30a. 5 On appeal, 1061 (2003), thought error addressed reviewing view could recognized where probable, although Id., 1072 ("Therefore, can benefit there between `micro color' mark"). found material eight-factor reversed remanded 6 granted petition certiorari, 540 1099 (2004), disagreement significance claim, obligation defending ground unlikely Compare 3d, (likelihood bars defense); PACCAR TeleScan Technologies, L. C., 319 F.3d 243, 256 (CA6 2003) ("[A] forecloses defense"); Zatarains, Oak Grove Smokehouse, 698 2d 786, 796 (CA5 1983) (alleged infringers free contained "in their ordinary, sense, so [did] tend customers source goods"), Cosmetically Sealed Industries, Chesebrough-Pond's USA 125 28, 30-31 (CA2 1997) (the Shakespeare Co. Silstar Corp. Am., 110 234, 243 (CA4 determination [does not] preclud[e] considering fairness use"); Sunmark, Ocean Spray Cranberries, 64 1055, 1059 (CA7 1995) (finding preclude defense). now vacate Appeals. II 7 Act 1946, known principal proponent Lanham Act, 60 Stat. 427, amended, et seq., user trade service opportunity register PTO, §§ 1053. registrant then satisfies conditions continuous five consecutive years, "the commerce" designate specified "shall incontestable" outside certain listed exceptions. 8 holder (incontestable not) civil against anyone employing imitation commerce "such deceive." 1114(1)(a). commerce," 1115(b), still subject 1114," ibid. And that, just noted, produce minds question. 780 (1992) (STEVENS, concurring); Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Alpha Virginia, 43 922, 935 1995); Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition 21, Comment (1995) (hereinafter Restatement). portion provision available 9 name, term, device party, geographic ." 10 evident. registration. 11 Starting these textual fixed points, 1114 fit terse drafting meant place "`[W]here includes particular statute omits another same generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion.'" 23 (1983) (quoting Wong Kim Bo, 472 720, 722 1972)) (alteration original).4 12 find much suggestion correct competition stress conducting went too far sowing either enjoin order include disclaimer. 602 (1911) ("[W]e unable escape conclusion manner shown, serve purpose simulation ."); Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Hall's 208 554, 559 (1908) ("[T]he rights two parties been reconciled allowing provided explanation attached"). But tolerated person's William R. Warner Eli Lilly 265 526, 528 (1924) "[t]he similar name truthfully his product constitute legal moral wrong, effect mistake ownership product"); Canal Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 327 (1872) ("Purchasers mistaken, deceived false representations, equity telling truth"); see Altman, Callmann Competition, Monopolies 18:2, 18-8 18-9, n. (4th ed. 2004) (citing cases). Part II-B, infra, stand proposition dispositive. Certainly get them (or any) court's belief agnosticism do. Put way, shown preponderance theory foreclosed "[I]t defies logic argue asserted situation becomes relevant." Corp., 243. 14 tries extenuate anomaly conception arguing oddity reflects "vestigial" character historical matter. Tr. Oral Arg. 39. 1988 added express markholder's exclude "subject proof infringement," Law Revision 1988, 128(b)(1), 102 3944, prior prove Before argument goes, sensible issue saddled likely, revision simply failed relieve suddenly strange very new first place. work. highly suspect leaving claimed redundant pointless. Hibbs Winn, 542 88, 101 (2004) (noting "rule superfluities" construction). main problem premise: assumption holders marks wrong. Beer Nuts, Clover Club Foods 805 920, 924-925 (CA10 1986) (requiring mark); Jaycees Philadelphia Jaycees, 639 134, 137, (CA3 1981) ("[I]ncontestability mak[e] unnecessary McCarthy, 32:154, p. 32-247 ("Before majority while incontestability grants conclusive presumption `exclusive use' confusion"). B 16 free-standing follows Appeals's is. law's tolerance followed fact like originally selected mention undesirability obtain complete monopoly grabbing first. Wall., 323-324, 327. adopts leniency, being indication deprive speakers ordinary utility words. "If results, risk accepted decided identify uses well phrase." 30. Park `N Fly, Dollar 469 189, 201 (1985) safeguards prevent monopolization language); Car-Freshner Johnson Son, 70 267, 269 importance "protect[ing] society large images primary sense").5 reason terms qualify trademarks after secondary meaning "distinctive applicant's goods," 1052(f), getting original, associated goods, supra, 11:45, 11-90 ("The aspect given protection penumbra fringe surrounds old word"). 17 thus recognize mere think us suffices realize holding occur along foreclose relevance extent objectively fair. consider scope, commentators amici urged bears become identified realistically called descriptive. ("[T]o less (emphasis deleted)); 1059; 28; Brief American Intellectual Property Association Amicus Curiae 13-18; Private Label Manufacturers 16-17; Society Cosmetic Professionals al. Amici 8-11. 18 likewise amicus, 17. relevant, quite apart attention raises possibilities 28. As them, enough III 19 sum, independent descriptively, fairly, 20 remand opinion.6 21 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Boudett, Denise DeFranco, Rick D. Nydegger; Arthur Handler; Malla Pollack Ms. Pollack, pro se. Robert Long, affirmance. Raman, Theodore Davis, Olivia Maria Baratta International curiae. SCALIA joins opinion. BREYER note Appeals, early 1990's. Appellants' Opening 01-56055 (CA9), "any word, symbol, device, combination thereof person distinguish those manufactured sold others indicate unknown." U.S.C. 1127 summarize us. Court's findings generic nature acquired parties, (CD Cal., May 3-5, 5-8, holdings issues. 1068-1071 (CA9 2003). discussion "nominative use."Id., 1071-1072. Not declined "`[un]likely public.'" Hearings Trade-Marks Committee Patents, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 167-168 (1941) Hearings) (testimony Prof. Milton Handler) 72 Wallace Martin, Chairman, Bar Trade-Mark Legislation) ("Everybody got English assume nobody going away him") record indicates should direct factual issues bearing properly applied. motion adjudication descriptively 29a. arguable concessions bottles 1990's, appeared brochure. Opposition Motion Summary Judgment/Adjudication Cal.), 18-19; 31-32. analysis employment differ

Category: 7