Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

[page 108] Here, the district court erred in finding that no confusion resulted from appellees' conduct. Although the district court found no evidence of point-of-sale confusion, it failed to properly consider the issue of post-sale confusion. We have previously held that post-sale confusion can occur when a manufacturer of knockoff goods offers consumers a cheap knockoff copy of the original manufacturer's more expensive product, thus allowing a buyer to acquire the prestige of owning what appears to be the more expensive product. Mastercrafters Clock & Radio Co. v. Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc., 221 F.2d 464, 466 (2d Cir.1955). See also Insty*Bit, Inc. v. Poly-Tech Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 663, 672 (8th Cir.1996); Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 998 F.2d 985, 989 (Fed.Cir.1993); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145, 148 (4th Cir.1987). In Mastercrafters, we held that the practice of selling a knockoff wall clock at a cheaper price than the original created an actionable harm despite the fact that customers knew they were buying the knockoff because: At least some customers would buy [the copier's] cheaper clock for the purpose of acquiring the prestige gained by displaying what many visitors at the customers' homes would regard as a prestigious article. [The copier's] wrong thus consisted of the fact that such a visitor would be likely to assume that the clock was an Atmos clock. . . . [T]he likelihood of such confusion suffices to render [the copier's] conduct actionable. Id. That is precisely what has occurred in this case. The district court, however, dismissed the importance of post-sale confusion by stating that: [w]hile defendants' exploitation of the possibility of post-sale confusion may increase their sales at the expense of Hermes, I am not convinced that defendants' activity harms the public in the post-sale context. While Hermes' potential high-end customers may be confused in the post-sale context, these highly sophisticated purchasers will not be confused at the point of sale. 50 F.Supp.2d at 226 (emphasis in original). Such a practice does harm the public, however, by creating post-sale confusion, not just among high-end consumers, but among the general public, which may believe [page 109] that the knockoff is actually the genuine article. In fact, high-end consumers may be less confused than the general public in the post-sale context because many of them will be aware of the existence of copies. In either case, a loss occurs when a sophisticated buyer purchases a knockoff and passes it off to the public as the genuine article, thereby confusing the viewing public and achieving the status of owning the genuine article at a knockoff price. Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in finding no harm to the public in the continued sale of knockoff goods by appellees.