Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on February 26, 2008
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(4):217-218; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Current Intelligence |
US 11th Circuit rules that a mark must be likely to be seen to cause confusion
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC
Custom Mfg. & Eng'g, Inc. v Midway Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 2009 (11th Cir. 2007)
The 11th Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling that there was no likelihood of confusion when a company's trade name was improperly used on component parts in a water-meter reading system, manufactured and sold by other companies. The 11th Circuit found that the plaintiff had not shown that it was likely that relevant consumers would ever see its trade name used on component parts within the larger meter system. Where relevant consumers were not likely to encounter the use of the plaintiff's trade name, there could be no likelihood of confusion.
Correspondence: Email: marybeth.walker{at}finnegan.com