violazione di marchio RISE per bibite in lattina: Pepsi perde la lite (per ora)

La corte del southern district di Ney York decide  una domanda dui contraffazione a carico del colosso Pepsi: sentenza 3 novembre 2021, caso 21 Civ 6324 LGS, RISEANDSHINE CORPORATION- RISE BREWING c. Pepsico inc. (link preso da Reuters.com ).

Si v. le foto lattine a confronto e poi il marchio anteriore ingrandito.

La corte ravvis confondibilità-

L’azione è quella di reverse confuision: The reverse confusion theory protects the mark of a [senior] user from being overwhelmed by a [junior] user, typically where the [junior] user is larger and better known and consumers might conclude that the senior user is the infringer., p. 10.

I fattori esaminati sono i soliti dal caso Polaroid:

(1) the strength of the trademark;

(2) the degree of similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the defendant’s allegedly imitative use;

(3) the proximity of the products and their competitiveness with each other;

(4) the likelihood that the plaintiff will “bridge the gap” by developing a product for sale in the defendant’s market;

(5) evidence of actual consumer confusion;

(6) evidence that the defendant adopted the imitative term in bad faith;

(7) the respective quality of the products;

and (8) the sophistication of the relevant population of consumers.

In conclusione, dice la corte, << given the degree of similarity between Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s marks, the proximity of their areas of commerce, and credible testimony of actual confusion, Plaintiff has met its burden of showing a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction, regardless of whether the relevant standard is a clear or substantial likelihood, a simple likelihood, or serious questions on the merits. See generally Guthrie, 826 F.3d at 46; Virgin Enters. Ltd., 335 F.3d at 142. Plaintiff has shown that the risk of reverse  confusion is probable — i.e., that without an injunction, Plaintiff is at risk of “being overwhelmed by a subsequent user [PepsiCo], where the subsequent user is larger and better known.” LVL XIII Brands, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d at 666>>, p. 20

Difficile dar torto alla corte.

 

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.