United States: That’s A Fact, Tack You Very Much

Last Updated: February 11 2015
Article by Scott J. Slavick

After surprise granting of cert in tacking case, SCOTUS rules it's a jury's job

Tacking is a principle in trademark law that permits owners of a mark to make changes to it while retaining the priority date of the original. But a mark's owner can rely on tacking to establish priority only if the new version of the mark is the "legal equivalent" of the older version.

In January, in one of the few trademark cases to have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, the nation's highest court unanimously affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, holding that whether tacking is available as an argument for the priority of a mark in a given case is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Priority is an important concept in a trademark infringement claim because a plaintiff must demonstrate that its trademark rights predate the rights of the defendant. In this case, the district court had tasked the jury with determining whether Hana Bank could establish priority over Hana Financial by tacking its use of prior marks, Hana World Center and Hana Overseas Korean Club, to its current mark, Hana Bank.

The jury found in favor of Hana Bank. Hana Financial moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied.

The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that the question of tacking is a "highly fact-sensitive inquiry" to be resolved by juries. However, other circuits, such as the Federal Circuit and 6th Circuit, have treated the question of tacking as a question of law to be decided by the judge. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this circuit split. 

Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor stated that two marks are legal equivalents when they "create the same, continuing commercial impression" so that consumers consider both versions as the same mark. The commercial impression of a mark is determined from the perspective of an ordinary consumer's understanding of the impression that a mark conveys. Accordingly, the Court held that the question of whether tacking is warranted must be decided by a jury. 

Because of business decisions and changing advertising styles, a trademark may undergo changes in format and appearance over a period of years. Traditionally, such changes have been attacked in the courts on two grounds: one being that the change resulted in abandonment of rights in the old form and another being that the change prevents the user from tracing priority of use back to a date of first use of the old form of the mark. Tacking is another way to state the priority issue: It allows a mark's owner to "tack on" the prior use of the old format to the use of the new format to achieve priority of use over a rival.

According to the Supreme Court, applying a test that relies upon an ordinary consumer's understanding of the impression that a mark conveys falls comfortably within the ken of a jury. Indeed, the Court felt that it had long recognized across a variety of doctrinal contexts that, when the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make a fact-based assessment, the jury ought generally be the decision-maker.

Of course, a judge may decide the tacking issue in a non-jury case, and may do so in a jury case if the facts warrant it on a motion for summary judgment or for judgment as a matter of law. But otherwise, when a jury trial has been requested, "the question whether tacking is warranted must be decided by a jury."

The Court found that the district court had properly instructed the jury on the issue, and it therefore affirmed the district court judgment of non-infringement.

It has long been held that tacking is a question of fact, not law, and that evidence should be demonstrated that the commercial impression on consumers of old and new versions of the marks are the same. Other courts, however, have found that tacking is an issue of law. But the issue of tacking has come up relatively rarely in trademark jurisprudence.

That is partly why the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in this case was surprising. And many pundits have wondered whether the Court's ruling could indirectly impact a more important parallel issue that has also split the circuits: whether likelihood of confusion, a central trademark question, should be decided as a factual question or a legal one.

Most courts have said likelihood of confusion is a purely factual question best handled by juries; but the 2nd and 6th Circuits have said it is a mixed question of fact and law, and the Federal Circuit has ruled it is a purely legal question. This Circuit split is important not only in that it changes who is making the final decision on confusion but also because it changes the standard for appellate review.

The 9th Circuit, for example, would review a lower court's finding of confusion for "clear error;" the 2nd Circuit would review the factors that went into the finding for "clear error," but would then review the ultimate determination of likelihood of confusion de novo; the Federal Circuit would review the ruling entirely de novo.

(It's not without merit to speculate that the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the standard for appellate review of claim construction in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. might also suggest the highest court wants to curb the Federal Circuit's propensity to favor de novo review of everything presented to it. But that's a topic for another day — and for one of my colleagues in patent law!)

Back to this circuit split on likelihood of confusion, however. The same circuits have split the same way over tacking, leading some to speculate that the two might be linked in the eyes of the high court. In its brief, respondent Hana Bank went so far as to tell the justices that their eventual ruling would likely impact how courts weigh likelihood of confusion because both issues "compare trademarks by assessing their impression upon consumers." Hana Bank further argued that "Other courts are likely to look to this case not just for tacking guidance, but also to direct other consumer perception inquiries including likelihood of confusion, distinctiveness and secondary meaning... .".

Then, during oral argument in Hana last month, Justice Kennedy asked if the justices "have to have in the back of our minds what effect it will have on ... the likelihood of confusion issue" when it considered tacking.

In its ruling, the court did not explicitly address whether it views likelihood of confusion as a fact question to be handled by juries, the way it did about tacking; nor did the justices issue a radical ruling that cut against what most appeals courts have said about confusion, such as declaring tacking an issue of law.

But the court's main thrust was that trademark issues relating to consumer impression are likely better off being handled by juries, who are a group of consumers themselves. The court said it has long held that juries are the right way to go when the test at issue is how "an ordinary person or community would make an assessment."

Some lower courts might see that wording as reaching beyond the confines of tacking to likelihood of confusion — a test of how American consumers are likely to view an allegedly infringing mark. Some might consider the court's unanimous ruling in Hana as a strong indicator that the court believes issues involving consumer perception — whether tacking, likelihood of confusion, or secondary meaning — better align with the fact-finding role of a jury.

An alternate view, however, is that tacking is a subset of the likelihood of confusion analysis, and while it is now to be considered a question of fact, it does not necessarily follow that this subset should affect how the greater question is analyzed. On this model, if likelihood of confusion was determined to always be a question of fact for juries to decide, then it would necessarily follow that the subsidiary issue of tacking would also be a question of fact. But it's harder to argue that the lesser issue of tacking should control how a court analyzes the greater issue (likelihood of confusion).

Perhaps the Court's decision in Hana will push future litigants to argue that the minority of circuits that consider likelihood of confusion something other than a purely factual issue to reconsider that position. Only time will tack—er, I mean, tell.

Originally published by Inside Counsel, February 9, 2015

This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Scott J. Slavick
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions