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.

Authors
Scott J. Slavick
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

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