Court Opinion

ID: 9491587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:18:07.920054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:50.061715
License: Public Domain

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority presents a careful and well-researched opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from the decision to vacate the district court’s findings that Meece’s profits on infringing sales were de minimis and that his mark is not sufficiently similar to be likely to cause confusion with the Rolex “Crown Device” mark, and also to vacate the district court’s conclusion that Rolex is not entitled to recover profits and attorney’s fees. I would affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by ‘the district court in its comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. As the district court stated, its judgment “attempts to strike an equitable balance that protects the rights of Rolex, yet recognizes the legitimate interest of Meece to provide a valuable service to the public.” I *832would hold that the district court was successful in that attempt.