Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc.
78 F.3d 1111, 38 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1161, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining whether the use of a service mark creates a likelihood of confusion, a court must weigh an established eight-factor test, considering not only point-of-sale confusion among direct purchasers but also confusion among the general public regarding affiliation, sponsorship, or connection between the entities.
Facts:
- In 1957, professional golfers Jimmy Demaret and Jack Burke Jr. founded a golf club in Houston, Texas, naming it 'Champions Golf Club'.
- The Houston club began using the 'CHAMPIONS' service mark in 1960 and gained national prestige by hosting major tournaments, including the 1969 U.S. Open.
- The Houston club is a private, members-only facility that derives revenue from a national membership base (27 states) and visiting golfers.
- In 1985, Thomas Heilbron began developing a residential subdivision and golf course in Nicholasville, Kentucky, also named 'Champions'.
- The Nicholasville club began using the 'CHAMPIONS' mark in 1986, operated as a private, members-only club, and also sought to host national tournaments to build its reputation.
- The Nicholasville club has members from 16 states, with at least 13 states overlapping with the Houston club's membership.
- After Houston learned of Nicholasville's use of the mark, it sent a 'cease-and-desist' letter in 1989, which Nicholasville ignored.
Procedural Posture:
- Champions Golf Club, Inc. (Houston) filed a lawsuit against The Champions Golf Club, Inc. (Nicholasville) in U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged service mark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Nicholasville.
- The district court concluded that Houston failed to show a likelihood of confusion in the parties' dual use of the 'CHAMPIONS' mark.
- The plaintiff, Houston, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court err in its application of the eight-factor 'likelihood of confusion' test by misevaluating several factors, including the relevance of non-purchaser confusion, the scope of the parties' marketing channels, and the weight given to consumer sophistication?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, Circuit Judge
Yes. The district court erred by misapplying the eight-factor likelihood of confusion test. The ultimate question is not whether a consumer will mistakenly purchase the wrong service, but whether relevant consumers are likely to believe the services offered by the parties are affiliated in some way. The district court incorrectly dismissed evidence of actual confusion among non-purchasers, narrowly construed the marketing channels of two nationally-focused clubs, and gave dispositive weight to consumer sophistication while ignoring the potential for confusion about affiliation. The court must re-evaluate each of the eight factors—strength of the mark, relatedness of services, similarity of marks, actual confusion, marketing channels, degree of purchaser care, defendant's intent, and likelihood of expansion—to determine if consumers would likely be confused about an affiliation between the two clubs.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the eight-factor likelihood of confusion test in the context of high-end, geographically remote services. It establishes that 'likelihood of confusion' is a broad concept that includes confusion about affiliation or sponsorship, not just point-of-sale mistakes. The court's holding reinforces that evidence from non-purchasers is relevant, and that consumer sophistication, while a factor, does not automatically negate the possibility of confusion, especially when marks and services are identical. This decision guides lower courts to conduct a more holistic analysis, preventing them from giving disproportionate weight to single factors like geography or purchaser expertise.
