The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the mark "CROSSBOW" to sell exercise equipment. Nautilus Group, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 03-1526, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12104 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2004) (Shall, J.).
The plaintiff owns the trademark BOWFLEX for exercise equipment. The defendant used the mark CROSSBOW for exercise equipment. The district court awarded a preliminary injunction to the plaintiff, reasoning that the parties’ marks were similar and there was evidence of actual confusion and the defendant’s bad faith intent.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, but only after rejecting the basis on which the district court made its ruling. The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court that there was evidence of bad faith. Rather, the Court found the evidence demonstrated that the name CROSSBOW was chosen because the defendant’s product resembled a crossbow. The Federal Circuit also disagreed with the district court that stray comments from customers about the two products were evidence of actual confusion. "It was improper for the district court to consider this scant and ambiguous evidence of actual confusion in favor of [plaintiff] for purposes of granting a preliminary injunction." Finally, the Court repudiated the district court’s finding that the parties’ marks were similar, holding "we agree with [defendant] that the marks are not that similar." But the Federal Circuit then inexplicably refused to reverse the injunction. The Court reasoned that some of the other likelihood of confusion factors weighed in favor of the injunction, including the strength of the plaintiff’s mark and the similarities in the parties’ products and marketing channels.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
