No, customers are not likely to be confused. The court looked at five key things and decided the names were different enough. 1) 'Nutri' isn't a strong name because it just suggests 'nutrition' and lots of health companies use it. 2) The full names and logos for 'Nutri/System' and 'Nutri-Trim' look and sound different. 3) The companies are very different; one is an expensive program in its own buildings, and the other is a cheap program in community rooms. 4) Con-Stan wasn't trying to copy anyone, since it had been using 'Nutri' for decades. 5) There was almost no proof that any customers were actually confused. Because of all this, there was no illegal copying of the name.

No, the lower court wasn't wrong. We use the same rules to decide if someone is copying a service mark (like Nutri/System) or a regular trademark. These rules look at whether people might get confused about which company is which. We look at things like how unique and strong the name is, how similar the names look and sound, how the companies advertise and sell their services, whether the company using the similar name was trying to be sneaky, and if there's proof that people actually got confused. Even though Nutri/System did a lot of advertising, their name isn't very unique because lots of health companies use 'Nutri' in their names. The services Nutri/System and Con-Stan offer are pretty different in how they work and who they're for. Con-Stan had been using 'Nutri' names for a long time before Nutri/System, so they weren't trying to copy. There wasn't much proof that people actually got confused between the two companies. When we look at all of these things together, we don't think people are likely to mix up Nutri/System and NutriTrim. So, we agree with the lower court that Con-Stan didn't do anything wrong.

No, Con-Stan Industries' use of 'Nutri-Trim' does not create a likelihood of confusion with 'Nutri/System'. The analysis for service mark infringement is identical to that for trademark infringement, and under the governing multi-factor test, Nutri/System failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion. The court evaluated five factors: (1) Strength of the Mark: 'Nutri/System' is a weak, suggestive mark because the prefix 'Nutri' is commonly used in the health industry, and extensive advertising does not automatically transform a weak mark into a strong one. (2) Similarity of the Marks: The marks are dissimilar when considered in their entirety, including their logos, sound, and meaning, not just the shared prefix. (3) Marketing Channels: The services differ significantly in operation, target socioeconomic clientele, and facilities, meaning their marketing channels do not converge despite both using newspaper ads. (4) Good Faith: Con-Stan acted in good faith, as it had used the 'Nutri' prefix since 1960, long before Nutri/System existed. (5) Actual Confusion: The few instances of misdirected mail were de minimis and insignificant given the high volume of business for both companies. Because these factors weigh against a finding of likely confusion, there is no infringement.

No. I affirm the district court's decision because it properly applied the 'likelihood of confusion' standard, which is uniformly used for both service mark and trademark infringement cases. The court correctly analyzed the claim using the multi-factor test we have developed for determining likelihood of confusion. These factors include: (1) strength of the mark; (2) similarity of the marks; (3) marketing channels and proximity of the goods or services; (4) good faith and intent; and (5) evidence of actual confusion. Despite Nutri/System's extensive advertising, I find their 'Nutri/System' mark to be weak and suggestive rather than arbitrary or strong. The district court did not err in finding the Nutri/System and Nutri-Trim logos dissimilar in appearance, sound, and meaning when examined in their entirety. While there are similarities in the services offered, significant differences exist in the method of operation, target customer groups, and facilities used, indicating that the channels of trade do not converge. Con-Stan demonstrated good faith in adopting the 'Nutrí' prefix, having used it for health-related products since 1960. Finally, the evidence of actual confusion presented by Nutri/System was insignificant given the high volume of business conducted by both parties. Therefore, considering all these factors, there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks, and the district court's decision in favor of Con-Stan is affirmed.

Nutri/system, Inc. v. Con-Stan Industries, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot