Case Briefs
Case(s): AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).
AMF, Inc. was a manufacturer of recreational equipment, including boats, and held a registered trademark for “Slickcraft” in connection with its boat products. Sleekcraft Boats was another company in the same industry that introduced a line of boats using the name “Sleekcraft.” AMF sued Sleekcraft Boats, arguing that its use of the mark “Sleekcraft” was likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe there was a connection between Sleekcraft Boats’ products and AMF’s “Slickcraft” products.
The district court, after a brief non-jury trial, found that AMF’s trademark was valid, but not infringed, and denied AMF’s request for injunctive relief.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of AMF, Inc., finding that the Sleekcraft factors weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion between the marks “Slickcraft” and “Sleekcraft.” The Ninth Circuit in this case established a set of factors to assess the likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement cases. The factors include:
(1) Similarity of the trademarks: Are there actual similarities between the trademarks (e.g. appearance, sound, etc.)?
(2) Strength of the trademark: Has the senior trademark established strength in the market? Is it fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, or descriptive?
(3) Proximity of the goods/services: Are the trademarks in use on competing products? Are the products related but not in direct competition?
(4) Evidence of actual confusion: Does evidence exist that consumers have actually confused the products?
(5) Marketing channels used: Do the products share similar channels of trade? Courts could even take into account each products’ placement in stores.
(6) Customer degree of care: How much caution do ordinary consumers exercise in making purchasing decisions?
(7) Intent of defendant: Does is appear that the alleged infringer was trying to create a likelihood of confusion?
(8) Likelihood of market expansion: Could the brands in question expand into overlapping markets? An eventual expansion could create new competition and result in consumer confusion.
After finding a likelihood of confusion, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to district court for entry of an injunction.