Robert Bruce, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13679, 343 F. Supp. 1333, 174 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 94 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arbitrary, fanciful, or counter-descriptive trademark is considered a strong mark entitled to protection without proof of secondary meaning. A competing mark infringes upon a strong mark if it is likely to cause confusion, which is determined by assessing factors such as the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods, the marketing channels used, and the degree of care exercised by purchasers.
Facts:
- Robert Bruce, Inc., a manufacturer of men's apparel, began using the registered trademark 'Grubb' in 1966 for its youth-oriented line of knit shirts, sweaters, and swimwear.
- The 'Grubb' apparel was high-quality, fashionable, and stylish, making the name 'Grubb' counter-descriptive to the products' actual characteristics.
- Robert Bruce invested heavily in promoting the 'Grubb' line, spending over $1.4 million since 1967, resulting in annual sales exceeding $12 million by 1971 and establishing significant goodwill.
- Since 1969, Robert Bruce sold coordinated casual pants under the 'Grubb' line and, by June 1971, decided to include jeans in the line for the Spring 1972 season.
- In May 1971, Sears, Roebuck and Co., a major retail company, began offering jeans for sale under the mark 'Neets n Grubs'.
- Sears advertised its 'Neets n Grubs' jeans to the same youth market as Robert Bruce, sometimes using the phrases 'Grubs' or 'The Grub thing' in its promotions.
- Sears displayed its 'Neets n Grubs' jeans alongside coordinated shirts and sweaters in its stores, a marketing technique similar to that used by Robert Bruce.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Bruce, Inc. sued Sears, Roebuck and Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and common law.
- The plaintiff, Robert Bruce, initially sought a preliminary injunction to stop Sears' use of the 'Neets n Grubs' mark.
- By agreement of the parties, the court merged the preliminary injunction hearing with a final hearing on the merits of the case.
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 Sears, Roebuck and Co.'s use of the mark 'Neets n Grubs' for jeans infringe on Robert Bruce, Inc.'s registered trademark 'Grubb' for men's apparel by creating a likelihood of confusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Becker
Yes, Sears' use of 'Neets n Grubs' infringes on the 'Grubb' trademark because 'Grubb' is a strong, arbitrary mark and 'Neets n Grubs' is likely to cause confusion. The court first determined that the 'Grubb' mark is not descriptive. Instead, it is arbitrary, fanciful, and even counter-descriptive, as the high-quality, fashionable apparel is the antithesis of the common meaning of 'grubby.' As a strong mark, 'Grubb' is entitled to protection without proof of secondary meaning. Applying the Restatement of Torts factors for likelihood of confusion, the court found that the 'Grubs' portion of Sears' mark is dominant and virtually identical in sound and appearance to 'Grubb.' Both companies sell related goods (apparel, including jeans) to the same youth market through similar marketing channels. The court rejected Sears' 'house mark' defense, reasoning that because Sears is known as a retailer of goods made by others, prefixing its name could aggravate, not lessen, confusion. While the court found Sears acted in good faith based on advice of counsel, intent is not required for injunctive relief. However, due to this good faith and lack of evidence of actual damages, the court denied monetary damages and an accounting, limiting the remedy to a permanent injunction.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear framework for analyzing trademark strength and likelihood of confusion. It strongly affirms that arbitrary, fanciful, or counter-descriptive marks are inherently distinctive and receive broad legal protection without the need to prove secondary meaning. The decision also serves as a key example of how courts apply the multi-factor test for likelihood of confusion, weighing similarities in the marks, goods, and marketing strategies. Significantly, the analysis of the 'house mark' defense clarifies that a well-known retailer's name might exacerbate, rather than mitigate, confusion, impacting how large retailers can co-brand products. The distinction between the requirements for injunctive relief (likelihood of confusion) and monetary damages (often requiring bad faith) is also a critical lesson on remedies in trademark law.
