Selected Initial Interest Confusion and Metatag Cases
Eric Goldman (email@example.com)
Taylor Building Corp. v. Benfield, 2007 WL 1748694 (S.D. Ohio June 15, 2007) (no IIC in griper case).
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners LLC, 2007
WL 1520101 (E.D.
Urban Outfitters, Inc. v. BCBG Max Azria Group, Inc., 2007
WL 1199662 (E.D.
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. American Body Bldg. Products, LLC, 2007 WL 128816 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2007) (11th circuit hasn’t adopted IIC, and it wasn’t persuasive in trade dress case).
J.G. Wentworth, S.S.C. Ltd. v. Settlement Funding LLC, 2007
WL 30115 (E.D.
Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc., 2006 WL 3227762 (D.
Cartier v. Symbolix, Inc., 454 F. Supp. 2d 175 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006) (newspaper advertisement for counterfeit good created initial interest confusion).
Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. v.
Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. ISPWest, 2006 WL 4568053
SMJ Group, Inc. v. 417 Lafayette Restaurant LLC, 439 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y July 6, 2006) (griper commits IIC by handing out leaflet in front of restaurant with restaurant’s logo and the words “SPECIAL FOR YOU” on leaflet’s front).
Tillery v. Leonard & Sciolla, LLP, 2006 WL 1699955 (E.D.
Shainin II, LLC v. Allen (W.D.
Conversive, Inc. v. Conversagent, Inc., 2006 WL 1408447
Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com, 2006 WL 737064 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2006) (competitor keyword ad buy may be trademark infringement, but IIC doesn’t necessitate bypassing the normal likelihood of confusion test).
Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 2005 WL 3739862 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2006) (10th circuit adopts IIC and finds that metatag and keyword usage constitutes infringement).
Tdata Inc. v. Aircraft Technical Publishers, 2006 WL 181991 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2006) (competitor’s metatag use is de facto per se trademark infringement).
Full House Productions, Inc. v. Showcase Productions, Inc., 2005 WL 3237729 (N.D. Ill. Nov 30, 2005) (“It is settled law in this circuit that placement of a competitor's trademark in the metatags of one's website can be actionable under the Lanham Act because it causes "initial interest confusion."”).
Starbucks Corp. v. Lundberg, 2005 WL 3183858 (D. Or. Nov 29, 2005) (“Sambuck’s” creates initial interest confusion of “Starbucks” mark when used for coffee-related goods).
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Lendingtree, Inc., 2005 WL 2495718 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2005) (IIC may be relevant to purchaser care factor).
Lamparello v. Falwell (4th Cir Aug. 24, 2005) (IIC may not be recognized in Fourth Circuit; IIC limited to use for "financial gain;" to evaluate IIC in a gripe site context, courts must look at both the domain name and the associated website).
AutoZone, Inc. v. Tri-State Auto Outlet, Inc., 2005 WL 1353797 (D. Del. June 7, 2005) (misdirected calls are characterized as IIC, but evidence of IIC isn’t given weight when products aren’t closely related).
Stilson & Associates v. Stilson Consulting Group, 2005 Fed. App. 0363N (6th Cir. May 6, 2005) (applying “likelihood of” initial interest confusion standard).
Faegre & Benson v. Purdy, Civil File No. 03-6472 (D. Minn. Apr. 27, 2005) (gripe site can use metatags in descriptive fair use sense but may not engage in pagejacking; using a person’s pseudonym as a domain name creates a type of initial interest confusion even if disclaimers are displayed to visitors).
Permanent injunction granted at 2006 WL 2466141(D. Minn. Aug 24, 2006).
Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 2005 WL 752337 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2005) (initial interest confusion does not apply when a griper made a noncommercial trademark use).
Google v. American Blinds & Wallpaper Factory, 2005 WL 832398 (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2005) (defining initial interest confusion).
Fargo Electronics, Inc. v. Iris Ltd., 2005 WL 1431653 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2005) (refusing to apply the IIC doctrine from the Faegre case in a situation where the customers are sophisticated).
Montblanc-Simplo v. Aurora Due S.r.L., 363 F. Supp. 2d 467 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2005) (initial interest confusion limited to competitors; no “likelihood of initial interest confusion” when no evidence that consumers would be drawn to competitive product by the trademark use).
SMC Promotions v. SMC Promotions, 2005 WL 292492 (C.D.
Corbond Corp. v. Core Foam, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 910 (W.D.
Best Vacuum, Inc. v. Ian Design, Inc., 2005 WL 1185817 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2005) (plaintiff does not get any credit for IIC when plaintiff chose a descriptive trademark).
Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. v. Houeix, 369 F. Supp. 2d 929 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2004) (gripe site not engaged in IIC; “purpose underlying the initial interest confusion doctrine: preventing competitors of a trademark holder from gaining an unfair financial or commercial advantage by luring unsuspecting users to their websites through use of the trademark”).
Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 217 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2004) (not enough evidence of IIC).
Kodiak Products Co., Inc. v. Tie Down, Inc., 2004 WL 2599353 (N.D. Tex. Nov 12, 2004) (in trade dress case, IIC can be used to support actual confusion factor, but purchaser care alleviates IIC).
Pure Imagination, Inc. v. Pure Imagination Studios, Inc., 2004 WL 2222269 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2004) (domain name can cause initial interest confusion by generating interest using plaintiff’s goodwill, although fact question about other trademark uses were adequately cured by exposure to the website and the website disclaimer).
McSpadden v. Caron, 2004 WL 2108394 (W.D.N.Y. Sep 20, 2004) (domain name that merely redirects can be IIC).
Affirmed without opinion, Asia Apparel, LLC v. Cunneen, 118 Fed. Appx. 782 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2005).
Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Nagrom, Inc., 2004 WL 2216491 (D. Kan. Sep. 7, 2004) (stipulated judgment very similar to Bayer Corp. v. Custom School Frames).
Bijur Lubricating Corp. v. Devco Corp., 2004 WL 1900367 (D. N.J. Aug 26, 2004) (no evidence of bad intent when seller of replacement parts includes trademark in metatags).
Pennsylvania Business Bank v. Biz Bank Corp., 2004 WL
Edge Wireless LLC v. U.S. Cellular Corp., 2004 WL 1661992 (D. Ore. July 23, 2004) (court seems to evaluate likelihood of IIC as separate test; however, no IIC between competitors for non-identical marks).
Strange Music, Inc v. Strange Music, Inc., 2004 WL 1488414 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) (evaluating IIC under “proximity” factor; no IIC without intentional deception).
MCW Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 2004 WL 833595 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2004) (no IIC by gripe site—court limits IIC to competitors).
Empresa Cubana del Tabaca v. Culbro Corp., 2004 WL 602295 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2004) (IIC in Cuban cigars even though they are embargoed).
Deere & Co. v. MTD Holdings Inc., 2004 WL 324890 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 19, 2004) (evaluating IIC under the “actual confusion” Polaroid factor; saying that IIC requires either “essentially identical marks and/or evidence of intentional deception”; even if there had been a few initial inquiries, “there is no evidence that this initial confusion led any of these customers to consider purchasing an MTD product at all, let alone because of its allegedly similar look to Deere products”).
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 311 F. Supp. 2d 690 (M.D. Tenn. Jan 22, 2004, corrected Feb 23, 2004) (IIC in trade dress case).
6th circuit opinion, September 12, 2005 (no IIC in trade dress case).
Faegre & Benson LLP v. Purdy, 2004 WL 167570 (D. Minn. Jan 5, 2004) (disclaimer does not cure IIC).
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 309 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003).
Reversed on other grounds by the Second Circuit, June 27, 2005.
Wells Fargo & Co v. WhenU.com, 293 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D.
The Beacon Mutual Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Group, 2003 WL 22699644 (D. R.I. Nov. 14, 2003) (questioning if IIC is recognized in First Circuit).
Savin Corp. v. The Savin Group, 2003 WL 22451731 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2003) (treating IIC as a ninth Polaroid factor; IIC requires intentional deception).
On appeal, Savin Corp. v. Savin Group, 2004 WL 2829324 (2d Cir. Dec 10, 2004) (saying that Internet IIC requires intentional deception).
Katz v. Modiri, 2003 WL 22087637 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2003) (treating IIC as a ninth Polaroid factor; no IIC among companies in related industries).
Int’l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. (E.D.
Madness Athletic Association LLC v. Netfire, Inc., 2003 WL 22-47375 (N.D.
Avlon Indus. v. Robinson, 2003 WL 22025004 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2003) (a distributor’s use of a domain name can create IIC, which supported a dilution claim).
Comerica Inc. v. Fifth Third Bancorp, 2003 WL 21995178 (E.D.
International Star Registry v. Bowman-Haight Ventures, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11803 (July 9, 2003) (no showing that metatag usage increased competitor’s sales).
[see the many other rulings in this case too]
eBay, Inc. v. Wederman (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2003) (use of ebaytoo.com by cybersquatter for competitive service was IIC).
Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. May 9, 2003) (metatag usage is trademark infringement).
Bayer Corp. v. Custom School Frames, LLC, 259 F. Supp. 2d
Golden West Fin. v. WMA Mortg. Servs., 2003
Flow Control Indus. v. AMHI, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
Retail Services, Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, 247 F. Supp. 2d 822 (E/D. Va. Feb. 27, 2003) (metatag usage does not indicate bad faith for ACPA analysis).
A subsequent 4th Cir. ruling (April 13, 2004) turned on the conclusion that “freebies” is generic.
Caesars World, Inc. v. Milanian, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (D.
Bishops Bay Founders Group Inc. v. Bishops Bay Apartments
LLC, 2003 WL 23202254 (W.D.
Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1019 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2003) (Netbula sues competitor for initial interest confusion based on metatags and keyword purchases at Google; this ruling allows Distinct to counterclaim for initial interest confusion because Netbula posted stories about the lawsuit on Netbula’s website and those stories got picked up by the search engines).
Bear Stearns Cos. v. Lavalle, 2002
Oracle Corp. v. Light Reading, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2002) (initial interest confusion referenced in multi-factor test, specifically considered as part of mark similarity, purchaser care, defendant intent but only weighing it against defendant in purchaser care factor).
AM Gen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002) (adopting verbatim the district court ruling; the district court ruled that the Hummer’s grille did not sufficiently infringe Jeep’s grille to award an injunction because any grille similarity would not create a “bait and switch”).
Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Fieldturf, Inc., 2002 WL 32783971 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2002) (metatags do not create IIC; legitimate use of metatags in this case for comparative advertising).
Promatek Indus., Ltd v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. Aug. 13, 2002, amended Oct. 18, 2002) (initial interest confusion found among competitors).
Adidas-Salomon AG v. Target Corp., 2002
Altira Group LLC v. Philip Morris Cos., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Colo. June 18, 2002) (no initial interest confusion between non-competitors).
Shell Trademark Mgmt. BV v. Canadian AMOCO, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9597 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2002) (no initial interest confusion by dealer selling third party goods while also advertising as a branded dealer).
Tobinick v. Scripps Clinic Med. Group, 2002
J.K. Harris & Co. v.
Subsequent ruling, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2003).
Caterpillar Inc. v. Telescan Techs., L.L.C., 2002 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3477 (C.D.
Key3Media Events, Inc. v. Convention Connection, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4043 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2002) (initial interest confusion found by provider of ancillary services).
DeVry/Becker Educ. Dev. Corp. v. Totaltape, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1230 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2002) (treating metatags and keyed ads as equivalent).
General Motors Corp. v. E-Publications LLC, 2001 WL 1798648
Ty, Inc. v. Agnes M., Ltd., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18852 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2001) (no summary judgment finding initial interest confusion by enthusiast site).
Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co., 171 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2001) (no initial interest confusion between partial competitors in the bank industry).
Strick Corp. v. Strickland, 162 F. Supp. 2d 37 (E.D.
Electropix Inc. v. Liberty Livewire Corp., 178 F. Supp. 2d
Chatam International, Inc. v. Bodum, Inc., 157 F. Supp. 2d
Trans Union LLC v. Credit Research, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ill. March 26, 2001) (initial interest confusion found among licensor and licensee when both sell the same product, but only with respect to certain domains).
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
Benchmark v. Benchmark Builders, Inc., 2000 WL 1886570 (D. Me. Dec. 29, 2000) (initial interest confusion recognized in the First Circuit but not found in this case between competitors).
Northland Insurance Companies v. Blaylock, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2000) (no initial interest confusion by criticism site).
Bihari v. Gross, 119 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000) (no initial interest confusion by criticism site).
Paccar, Inc. v. Telescan Technologies, L.L.C., 2000
Affirmed on appeal, 2003 Fed. App. 0040P (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2003).
Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. v. Park City Solutions,
Inc., 130 F. Supp. 2d 680 (W.D.
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 427 (D.N.J. July 12, 2000) (no initial interest confusion among non-competitors).
On appeal, Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2001).
Reed Publ'g B.V. v. Execulink, Inc., No. 98-1049, 2000
Simon Property Group L.P. v. mySimon, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (S.D. Ind. June 7, 2000) (acknowledging initial interest confusion but saying Simon’s surveys didn’t show it).
rulings at 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8953 (S.D. Ind. June 15, 2000), 194 F.R.D. 644
(S.D. Ind. 2000), 2000
Ken Roberts Co. v. Go-To.com, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6740 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2000) (finding that competitor’s use of metatags, even if to educate competitor’s customers, constituted infringement, violation of right of privacy, unfair competition under Cal. B&P 17200, and interference with economic advantage).
Bigstar Entertainment, Inc. v. Next Big Star, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 185 (S.D.N.Y. April 17, 2000) (no initial interest confusion among non-competitors who are both in the entertainment industry).
Northern Lights Tech., Inc. v. Northern Lights Club, 97 F.
Supp. 2d 96 (D.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 89 F. Supp.
2d 1154 (C.D.
subsequent ruling on the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 2002 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 6488 (C.D.
On appeal, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33937 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2000).
Further determinations on IIC, 9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2004 (reinforcing that IIC can occur in the Ninth Circuit between non-competitors; in this case, by providing relevant information to potential customers).
See also related case involving insurance coverage (finding that Nissan Computer’s defense was covered by advertising injury policy). State Auto Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 2003 WL 22070508 (4th Cir. Sept. 4, 200).
OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight Magazine, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 176 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2000) (initial interest confusion found by gripe/parody site).
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 20, 2000) (initial interest confusion found between partial competitors).
On appeal, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F. 3d 456 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2000).
Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Virgin Petroleum, Inc., 2000
The Network Network v. CBS, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4751
CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Engineering, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2000) (initial interest confusion found between partial competitors).
CFM Majestic, Inc. v. NHC, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D.
Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Children of the World Found., 99 F. Supp. 2d 481 (D.N.J. 2000).
Sturgis Area Chamber of Commerce v. Sturgis Rally & Races, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D.S.D. 2000).
Morrison & Foerster, LLP v. Wick, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1125
New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants v. Eric Louis Associates, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 1999) (initial interest confusion found among non-competitors in the same industry).
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 78 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 1999) (no initial interest confusion among partially-competitive websites).
On appeal, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2002).
Syndicate Sales, Inc. v. Hampshire Paper Corp, 192 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. Sept. 13, 1999) (no initial interest confusion between competitors in trade dress case where post-sale inspection could remedy the problem).
Quantum Fitness Corp. v. Quantum Lifestyles Centers, L.L.C., 83 F. Supp. 2d 810 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 1999).
Westchester Media Co. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 103 F. Supp. 2d 935 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 1999) (initial interest confusion found among non-competitors).
See companion ruling at 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12369 (August 4, 1999).
On appeal, 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir. June 27, 2000).
Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix Inc., 184 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. July 19, 1999) (initial interest confusion possible among non-competitors in similar industries).
On remand, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Ore. Jan. 3, 2001).
On appeal of the remand to the 9th Circuit, 304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2002).
Inc. v. C-CALL.com, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.
Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.
On appeal, Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 232 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Nov. 7, 2000) (no initial interest confusion among non-competitors).
EMC Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 59 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D. Mass. July 8, 1999) (initial interest confusion is a cognizable doctrine in the First Circuit).
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 1999) (no initial interest confusion among non-competitors).
Reversed on appeal, 2004 WL 57738 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2004).
SNA, Inc. v. Array, 51 F. Supp. 2d 554 (E.D. Pa., June 9, 1999).
Preliminary injunction at 51 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D. Pa., May 28, 1999).
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. April 22, 1999) (initial interest confusion found between partial competitors).
Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 32 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. v. American Body Armor and
Equip., Inc., 1999
Niton Corp. v. Radiation Monitoring Devices, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 1998) (injunction against pagejacking).
Acxiom Corp. v. Axiom, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 1998) (initial interest confusion likely among non-competitors).
Liquid Glass Enters., Inc., v. Dr. Ing. h.c.f Porsche AG, 8 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D.N.J. 1998).
Federal Express Corp. v. Federal Espresso, Inc., 1998
Sugar Buster, L.L.C. v. Brennan, 1998 WL 661487 (E.D. La. Sept. 22, 1998).
Icon Solutions, Inc v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8705 (E.D. Pa. June 16, 1998) (initial interest confusion possible among competitors).
Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. May 7, 1998) (initial interest confusion found when defendant trading on goodwill).
Regal Jewelry Co. v. Kingsbridge Int'l, 999 F. Supp. 477 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998)
Big Top USA, Inc. v. Wittern Group, 998 F. Supp. 30 (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 1998) (no initial interest confusion based on trade dress between competitors).
Sara Lee Corp. v. American Leather Prods., 1998
Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998).
Western Chemical Pumps, Inc. v. Superior Manufacturing, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1112 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 1997) (no initial interest confusion based on trade dress between competitors).
Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., v. Teunissen, 131 F.3d 1210 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 1997) (no initial interest confusion among competitors).
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 984 F. Supp. 286 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 1997) (initial interest confusion found among competitors).
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci,
Affirmed without comment at 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 22179 (2d Cir. 1998).
McNeil-PPC v. Guardian Drug Co., 984 F. Supp. 1066 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (pre-sale trade dress confusion is actionable).
Green Prods. Co. v. Independence Corn By-Products Co., 992
F. Supp 1070 (N.D.
TeleTech Customer Care Management, Inc. v. Tele-Tech Co., 977 F. Supp. 1407 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (no initial interest confusion between companies in related industries).
Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Manny's Porshop, Inc. 972 F.
Supp. 1128 (N.D.
Toy Manufacturers of
Cardservice Int'l, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Va. 1997).
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 1997) (initial interest confusion found by parody).
Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc., 94 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 1996) (no initial interest confusion in trade dress case when there was no passing off).
Sweet v. City of
Advance Stores Co. v. Refinishing Specialties, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 643 (W.D. Ky. 1996).
Clinique Laboratories v. Dep Corp., 945 F. Supp 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Upjohn Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 1996 WL 33322175 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 1996).
Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd., 942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D.
Krueger Int'l, Inc. v. Nightingale Inc., 915 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
International Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy
First Keystone Fed. Sav. Bank v. First Keystone Mortgage, Inc., 896 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
Sunenblick v. Harrell, 895 F. Supp. 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Mayflower Transit, Inc. v. Ann Arbor Warehouse Co., 892 F.
Supp. 1134 (S.D.
Kompan A.S. v. Park Structures, Inc., 890 F. Supp. 1167 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).
Philip Morris Inc. v. Star Tobacco Corp., 879 F. Supp. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Foxworthy v. Custom Tees, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1200 (N.D.
Blockbuster Entm't Group v. Laylco, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
Schieffelin & Co. v. Jack Co of Boca, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
Munsingwear Inc. v. Jockey Int’l Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8243 (D. Minn. 1994) (no pre-sale confusion when consumers know exactly what brand they are buying).
On appeal, 39 F.3d 1184 (8th Cir. 1994).
Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 841 F. Supp 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Great Boston Radio, II, Inc., 1993
Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, Co., 1993
Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc., 833 F. Supp. 739 (E.D. Ark. 1993).
Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 998 F.2d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22598 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 1992) (initial interest confusion due to trade dress found among competitors).
Yankee Publ'g Inc. v. News Am. Publ'g Inc., 809 F. Supp. 267 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. April 24, 1991) (giving little weight to “short-lived confusion” under the actual confusion factor).
S.P.A Esercizio v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235 (6th Cir. 1991).
Murphy v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 923 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1990) (initial confusion over advertisement was not equivalent to confusion over source; dissent disagreed with this point)
Forum Corp. of N. Am. v. Forum, Ltd. 903 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1990).
Weiss Assocs., Inc. v. HRL Assocs., Inc., 902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Joy Mfg. Co. v. CGM Valve & Gauge Co., 730 F. Supp 1387
Imperial Service Systems, Inc. v. ISS International Service Sys. Inc., 701 F. Supp. 655 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 1988).
Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc., 678 F. Supp.
First Nationwide Bank v. Nationwide Sav. & Loan Ass'n., 682 F. Supp. 965 (E.D. Ark. 1988).
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. May 4, 1987) (initial interest confusion found among competitor).
Lois Sportswear, USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) (Polaroid factors should be applied with an eye towards possible pre-sale confusion).
Television Enter. Network, Inc. v. Entm't Network, Inc. 630 F. Supp. 244 (D.N.J. 1986).
Tandy Corp. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 1124 (M.D. Tenn. 1984).
Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983).
Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., 693 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1982).
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160 (11th Cir. 1982).
Warehouse Rest., Inc. v. Customs House Rest., Inc., 1982
Dreyfus Fund Inc. v. Royal Bank of
Koppers Co. v. Krupp-Koppers GmbH, 517 F. Supp. 836 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
Chevron Chem. Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 1980
Squirt Co. v. Seven-Up Co., 1978
Programmed Tax Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 419 F. Supp. 1251 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
President and Trs. Of Colby Coll. V. Colby Coll.-N.H., 374 F. Supp. 1141 (D.N.H. 1974).
Grotrian, Helfferich, Schultz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons, 365 F. Supp. 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (initial interest confusion found between competitors).
Appellate ruling at 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir July 9, 1975).
Communications Satellite Corp. v. Comcet, Inc., 429 F.2d 1245 (4th Cir. 1970).
Blaw-Knox Co. v. Siegerist, 300 F. Supp. 507 (E.D. Mo. 1968).
On appeal, 414 F.2d 375 (4th Cir. 1969).
Safeway Stores v. Suburban Foods, 130 F. Supp. 249 (E.D. Va. 1955) (“Differences in the store interiors and in the manner of checking out purchases are too slight to rectify the initial confusion. The correction, moreover, would come only after the patron had been attracted into the store.”).
Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 445
Alta Vista Co. v. AltaVista, FA95480 (NAF, Oct. 31, 2000).
Antoun v. Truth Squad, FA114766 (NAF, Aug. 21, 2002) (initial interest confusion found in criticism site paxtonheraldonline.com).
Antoun v. Millard, FA114770 (NAF, Aug. 21, 2002) (companion ruling to the Truth Squad case involving the domain paxtonherald.com).
NOTE: Many thanks to Paul Krause for his assistance preparing this list.