Majosta Trademark Infringement: Volume 1

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding trademark infringement claims. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff alleging trademark infringement must demonstrate that (1) "it has a valid mark that is entitled to protection" and that (2) the defendant's "actions are likely to cause confusion with [that] mark." The Sports Auth., Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955, 960 (2d Cir. 1996). "[A] plaintiff does not have to show necessarily that consumers would believe that the defendant's goods or services are from the same source as those of the plaintiff." Id. Rather, a defendant may also be liable for trademark infringement if its "actions are 'likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association' of the defendant's goods or services with those of the plaintiff." Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)); see also Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC, 823 F.3d 153, 161-63 (2d Cir. 2016). That said, the mere possibility of confusion is not enough. To prevail in a trademark infringement action, a plaintiff must prove "a probability of confusion ... affecting numerous ordinary prudent purchasers." Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 412 F.3d 373, 383 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Tiffany and Company v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F. 3d 74 (2nd Cir. 2020)