Tag Archives: likelihood of confusion

Court considers Yelp posting as evidence of potential consumer confusion in trademark case

Posting by confused consumer was not hearsay.

You Fit, Inc. v. Pleasanton Fitness, LLC, 2013 WL 521784 (M.D.Fla. February 11, 2013)

In a trademark case between competing health clubs, the court considered a Yelp posting in entering a preliminary injunction, finding that while the anonymous posts were not conclusive evidence of actual confusion, they were indicative of potential consumer confusion.

The dispute centered over the use of “You Fit” and “Fit U” for health clubs. A Yelp user posted the following:

I am soo [sic] confused. I was a member at Youfit in [Arizona] and when I moved back to [California] I saw this place by my house and thought great my gym is here! When I went into the gym, I realized it was called Fit U. They use the same basic color scheme on their sign and the motto seemed the same. When I asked the girl at the desk, … [she] said her owner created this brand. I said what are you [ sic ] rates? Seemed very similar to me as when I was a member at Youfit. Very confusing and a big let down.

The court rejected defendant’s hearsay argument. It noted that affidavits and hearsay materials which would not be admissible evidence for a permanent injunction may be considered if the evidence is appropriate given the character and objectives of the injunctive proceeding. With no analysis as to why, the court found the Yelp posting appropriate to consider at this stage of the case.

Moreover, the court observed in a footnote that the Yelp post was not hearsay to begin with. It was not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to demonstrate the consumer’s confusion — a then-existing mental state of the declarant, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. This is an interesting finding. The hearsay and non-hearsay uses of the post both turn on the same content, particularly the statement “I am soo [sic] confused.” That statement is the matter asserted (and in such capacity, excludable hearsay). And it is also the mindset of the declarant (and in such capacity, subject to an exception to the hearsay rule).

The court’s opinion does not address what one might see as the real problem with the Yelp evidence — its authenticity. Perhaps the parties did not bring that up. But one does not have to venture far in imagination to see how a crafty plaintiff could generate, or direct the generation, of self-serving social media content that would be helpful as evidence in a litigated matter.

See also: Customer reviews on social media provide important evidence in trademark dispute

Customer reviews on social media provide important evidence in trademark dispute

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Chipotles Grill of Jonesboro, Inc., 2011 WL 2292357 (E.D. Ark. June 9, 2011)

The awesome burrito place Chipotle sued another restaurant that called itself Chipotles for trademark infringement. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction. The court granted the motion.

One of the most important factors in the court’s decision to grant injunctive relief was the plaintiff’s showing that it will likely succeed on the merits of the case. In a trademark infringement action, that analysis takes the form of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

Among the factors that a court should consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion is whether there has been any actual confusion among members of the consuming public. In this case, the court found that the evidence plaintiff submitted of actual confusion was “substantial.”

In addition to a number of emails that customers had sent to plaintiff, the court looked to a couple of customer review sites — urbanspoon.com and Yahoo’s associatedcontent.com — each of which contained customer reviews that erroneously linked plaintiff and defendant. The court found this to constitute actual confusion, which could not be remedied even through reasonable care on the part of the consumers.

The case gives a good example of how companies (and their competitors) should be aware of how their brands appear in social media. Evidence of actual confusion is a powerful tool for a trademark plaintiff (and a potentially damning one for a trademark defendant). Smart companies will ensure they remain aware of how their marks and overall brand identity are being put forth, even off the beaten path on the web.

Evan Brown is a Chicago-based attorney practicing technology and intellectual property law. Send email to ebrown@internetcases.com, call (630) 362-7237, or follow on Twitter at @internetcases.

Former band members’ use of service mark is not so Chic

Rogers v. Wright, No. 04-1149, 2008 WL 857761 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2008)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a permanent injunction restricting the use of the service mark CHIC in connection with musical performances by two former members of the musical group of the same name.

Plaintiff Rogers (founder of the music group Chic) claimed that Defendants Wright and Martin (former Chic singers) infringed his rights in the service mark CHIC for music and vocal entertainment services. Rogers formed the group in 1977 and obtained service mark registrations for the band name in 1982 and 2004.

Chic

Wright and Martin, who previously performed on Chic albums and in live televised performances, had been performing in the U.S. and abroad since 2003. At various times, and without permission, they operated a Web site at www.ladiesofchic.com, and billed themselves as “First Ladies of Chic”, “Chic”, “The Original Ladies of Chic”, “Chic: Live!”, and “Les Chic”. They were billed by one venue as “original artists singing all the original hits.”

The court first found that Rogers had valid rights in the CHIC mark — regardless of whether those rights arose from the 1982 or 2004 registrations or from common law rights. The court then found a likelihood of confusion between Rogers’s mark and Wright and Martin’s use of the same using the 8-factor Polaroid test.

Specifically, the court found: (1) the CHIC mark was “at least moderately strong” in that it had created a tendency in the minds of consumers to associate it with Rogers’s band; (2) the defendants’ uses of the Chic mark (as noted above) were “sufficiently similar” to cause confusion; (3) the parties competed directly in the same market; (4) an analysis under “bridging-the-gap” was not required because of the third factor; (5) there was some evidence of actual confusion; (6) the defendants intended to take advantage of the plaintiff’s reputation and good will in adopting their various uses of his mark; (7) there was little evidence of the quality of defendant’s product; and, (8) similarly, there was little evidence of the sophistication of the relevant consumer group, i.e., concert attendees or promoters. Taking all of these factors together, the court found “little difficulty” in finding Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s mark was likely to cause confusion.

The court was not persuaded by the defendants’ attempted fair use defense. The defendants had certainly used CHIC as a mark (and not, for example, mere comparative advertising or other descriptive purposes – see, e.g., Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the defendants’ promotional materials used the CHIC mark in a prominent manner. The court was similarly unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument that the Lanham Act did not apply to acts outside of the U.S.

Filter maker says Apple’s trademark threats a bunch of hot air

“Lowest perceptive capabilities.” Is that code for “a moron in a hurry“?

Chicago-based BlueAir, Inc. has apparently been getting some threats from Apple over BlueAir’s pending trademark registration for the mark AIRPOD, to be used in connection with desk top air purifiers. Apple says AIRPOD will infringe on the IPOD mark.

BlueAir has gone on the offensive, asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enter a declaratory judgment of no infringement.

The heart of BlueAir’s allegations are as follows:

“There is no reasonable likelihood of confusion, mistake, or error in the marketplace for persons of even the lowest perceptive capabilities who are seeking an iPod music player considering or buying an AIRPOD desktop air cleaner instead.”

This dispute has been going on for a few months, and it is interesting to see suit filed now, to essentially coincide with the introduction of the MacBook Air.

BlueAir, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 08-427 (N.D. Ill. filed January 18, 2007)
[Download the Complaint]