Il marchio <ALIIGN> (denominativo, parrebbe) per abbigliamento e prodotti per yoga è contraffatto dal marchio <Align mat> (e altro ad es.: <Align pants>) per la stessa merce? Dice di no un Tribunale della California: US D.C. Central District of California ,Aliign Activation Wear, LLC v. lululemon athletica Canada Inc. and lululemon USA Inc., 06 luglio 2021, caso n° 2:20-cv-03339-SVW-JEM .
Secondo il precedente Sleekraft del 1979, secondo la Corte, <<to analyze the likelihood of confusion, courts consider eight factors known as the Sleekcraft factors: (1) strength of the mark(s); (2) relatedness of the goods; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels; (6) degree of consumer care; (7) the defendants’ intent; and (8) the likelihood of expansion by the trademark holder.2 See id. (citing AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th Cir. 1979)>>
Inooltre distingue tra forward confusion, reverse confusion e initial interest confusion.
Segue analisi di ciascuno degli otto fattori nel caso de quo.
Conclusione: <<Although a plaintiff need not satisfy every Sleekcraft factor to survive summary judgment, they must make a “strong showing” with respect to at least some of them. Surfvivor, 406 F.3d at 631. Here, no reasonable juror could find in AAW’s favor on six of the seven relevant Sleekcraft factors. See supra at 6–17. Under these circumstances, no reasonable juror could find that consumers purchasing lululemon think that AAW was either the source of, or was sponsoring, lululemon’s product line. To the contrary, the “record taken as a whole” could only lead a rational trier of fact to one conclusion: consumers
purchasing lululemon products know the products were created by lululemon and not AAW. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’”) (quoting First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)). >>
Negativa risposta anche per la reverse confusion, sub B, e per la initial interest condision, sub C.
Si noti la pregevole idea (sarà una prassi) di allegare alla sentenza tre appendici con la riproduzione delle schermate contenenti i risultati prodotti da Google Search.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)