Confusion

"Trademark law seeks to prevent one seller from using the same 'mark' as--or one similar to--that used by another in such a way that he confuses the public about who really produced the goods (or service)." DeCosta v. Viacom Int'l, Inc., 981 F.2d 602, 605 (1st Cir. 1992); WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Ass'n, 926 F.2d 42, 43 (1st Cir. 1991).

Here is an Article by Stephen J. Jeffries and Edward Joseph Naughton concerning the Supreme Court decision that says some confusion is allowed in trademark cases (KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc, 125 S.Ct. 542 (2004)).

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals puts in in context with a very revealing statement concerning knockoffs which is what the Lanham Act is all about.

Here are some short outlimes of court cases about confusion:

• American Circuit Breaker Vs Oregon Breakers, 03-35375 (9th Cir. April 25, 2005)
• Beacon Mut. Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Group, 376 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004)
• Bumble Bee Seafoods, L.L.C. v. UFS Indus. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1684 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
• Citizens Financial Group Inc. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Evans City, 383 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2004)
• KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc, 125 S.Ct. 542 (2004)
• Surfvivor Media, Inc v. Survivor Productions, (9th Cir. 2005)
• Team Tires Plus Ltd. v. Tires Plus Inc., 394 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2005)
• What-A-Burger of Virginia, Inc. v. Whataburger, Inc. of Corpus Christi, Texas, 357 F.3d 441 (4th Cir. 2004)