Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
269 F.3d 270 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Lanham Act, a junior user's mark does not create a likelihood of confusion with a senior user's similar mark if the parties' goods are unrelated, are marketed through different channels to sophisticated consumers who exercise a high degree of care, and there is no evidence of bad faith intent or market convergence. While initial interest confusion is actionable, its weight is diminished when other factors overwhelmingly suggest no likelihood of confusion in purchasing decisions.
Facts:
- Since 1967, Checkpoint Systems, Inc. has manufactured and sold commercial electronic security systems under its registered "CHECKPOINT" trademark.
- Checkpoint Systems primarily sells electronic article surveillance systems to retailers to prevent merchandise theft, with systems costing between $2,000 and $5,000.
- In 1993, Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. was founded in Israel and adopted the "Check Point" mark for its computer network security software, primarily firewall technology.
- The founders of Check Point Software were unaware of Checkpoint Systems when they chose their company's name.
- Check Point Software's firewall products are sophisticated software applications costing thousands of dollars that must be installed and maintained by specialized computer network information specialists.
- Checkpoint Systems markets its products to security professionals and retailers at security-focused trade shows and in publications like 'Security' magazine.
- Check Point Software markets its products to Internet and computer network professionals at technology trade shows and in computer trade magazines like 'PC Week'.
- In 1996, Checkpoint Systems attempted to register the domain name www.checkpoint.com and discovered it was already registered to Check Point Software.
Procedural Posture:
- Checkpoint Systems, Inc. sued Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
- Following a non-jury (bench) trial, the District Court entered judgment for the defendant, Check Point Software, finding no likelihood of confusion and thus no Lanham Act violation.
- Checkpoint Systems, Inc. (as appellant) appealed the District Court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a junior user's use of a mark that is nearly identical to a senior user's registered mark create a likelihood of confusion in violation of the Lanham Act when the parties operate in different, non-competing market segments and sell expensive, highly technical products to sophisticated consumers?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Scirica
No. A junior user's use of a similar mark does not create a likelihood of confusion when the totality of the circumstances, evaluated under the ten-factor 'Lapp' test, indicates that marketplace confusion is unlikely. The court reasoned that despite the strong similarity of the marks, the other factors weighed heavily against finding confusion. The court found that the parties' products serve fundamentally different functions (physical security vs. information security), are marketed in different channels to different, highly sophisticated buyers, and that these buyers exercise a high degree of care due to the products' expense and importance. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Check Point Software intended to trade on Checkpoint Systems's goodwill, the markets were not converging, and the minimal evidence of actual confusion (including initial interest confusion) was de minimis and insufficient to establish a Lanham Act violation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the 'initial interest confusion' doctrine in the Third Circuit, confirming that pre-sale confusion can be actionable under the Lanham Act. However, the court simultaneously limits the doctrine's impact by holding that de minimis evidence of such confusion will not outweigh a strong showing of no likely confusion based on other factors, particularly in cases involving non-competing goods and sophisticated consumers. The decision reinforces a holistic, qualitative application of the likelihood of confusion test, clarifying that mark similarity alone is not dispositive. It provides a framework for how companies in different high-tech sectors with similar names can legally coexist.
Unlock the full brief for Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.