![]() He overwhelming balance of the Sleekcraft factors weighs against a likelihood of confusion” such that “a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that Dropbox’s use of Smart Sync is likely to cause consumer confusion. (1) strength of the mark (2) proximity of the goods (3) similarity of the marks (4) evidence of actual confusion (5) marketing channels used (6) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.īased on its analysis, the lower Court held: #Dropbox inc or tm trialThe trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DropBox by considering a list of factors known in the Ninth Circuit as the Sleekcraftfactors, which entails an analysis of: Ironhawk sued Dropbox for trademark infringement under a theory of “reverse confusion.” developed a product called “Smart Sync” that “allows users to see and access files in their Dropbox cloud storage accounts.” In this situation, Ironhawk – – whoever heard of them – – was the senior user of the trademark but Dropbox, who is the junior user, was more dominant in the marketplace. #Dropbox inc or tm registrationIn 2007, it obtained a trademark registration for the name. #Dropbox inc or tm softwareIn this case, Ironhawk developed a software product named “SmartSync”, used for data compression and replication. versus Dropbox, Inc., decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Take for example a recent reported case, Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. As unlikely as this may seem, it can be a real problem. The result is that the consuming public would confuse your chocolate with those sold by Trader Joe’s.īut what happens if the junior user is so dominant in the marketplace that consumers using the senior user’s product, believes that the source of the goods or service is the junior user? This is known as “reverse confusion.” Taking the previous example, it would be as if consumers buying Trader Joe’s chocolate bars believe, because of your dominance in the marketplace, that the source of the chocolate was you, not Trader Joe’s. To take a concrete example, if you are selling chocolate bars under the name “Trader Joe”, you will surely receive a cease-and-desist letter from Trader Joe’s (the senior user) alleging that you (the junior user) are taking advantage of the goodwill created by Trader Joe’s in its own products. Typically, this involves the senior user of the trademark, that is the party who uses the trademark first, complaining that the infringer (the junior user) is taking advantage of the goodwill embodied in the trademark and paid for by the senior user. ![]() Whether you are a regular reader of our newsletter or not, you should be familiar with the concept of “trademark infringement.” That’s when a business uses a trademark that is the same as or similar to that of another business, which causes confusion among consumers over the source of the goods or services. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |