Star Industries, Inc. v. Bacardi & Company Limited

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
412 F.3d 373 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To prevail on a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove both that its mark is protectable and that the defendant's use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. A stylized mark may be inherently distinctive and thus protectable, but if it is a weak mark, it is less likely to support a finding of consumer confusion against a junior user's mark, especially when the products are clearly labeled with distinct brand names.

Facts:

Star Industries, Inc. ('Star') produces 'Georgi' brand vodka, sold primarily in the New York metropolitan area.
In June 1996, Star developed an orange-flavored Georgi vodka and designed a new label featuring a large, stylized, elliptical orange letter 'O' surrounding the other label elements.
Star was apparently the first company to package an orange-flavored alcoholic beverage in a bottle bearing such a large elliptical orange letter 'O' design.
Sales of Star's orange-flavored vodka remained low, and no evidence suggested consumers commonly referred to the product as 'Georgi O'.
In 2000, Bacardi & Co. Ltd. ('Bacardi') began developing an orange-flavored rum, introduced nationally in 2001 as 'Bacardi O'.
The 'Bacardi O' label, created by a third-party design firm, also featured a large elliptical orange letter 'O' with gold bordering.
In 2003, Anheuser-Busch, under license from Bacardi, launched 'Bacardi Silver O,' an orange-flavored malt beverage, which also used the Bacardi 'O' design.

Procedural Posture:

Star Industries sued Bacardi in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging federal and state trademark infringement.
Star later amended its complaint to add Anheuser-Busch as a defendant.
Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that Star's 'O' design was not a protectable trademark and that, in the alternative, there was no likelihood of confusion.
Judgment was entered for defendants-appellees.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) then approved Star's application to register its 'O' design.
Star moved in the district court to reopen the trial record to include the PTO's decision, but the court denied the motion.
Star Industries, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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:

Does Bacardi's use of a stylized 'O' on its orange-flavored beverages create a likelihood of consumer confusion with Star's similar 'O' mark, thereby constituting trademark infringement under the Lanham Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Pooler, Circuit Judge

No. Bacardi's use of its 'O' mark does not create a likelihood of consumer confusion. Although Star's stylized 'O' design is inherently distinctive and therefore a protectable trademark, it is a weak mark, and a balancing of the Polaroid factors demonstrates that consumer confusion is not likely. The court first reversed the district court's finding on protectability, holding that Star's 'O' is not a basic shape but is sufficiently stylized in its shading, border, and thickness to be inherently distinctive, though it is a 'thin' or weak mark. The court then applied the eight-factor Polaroid test for likelihood of confusion. It found five factors favored Bacardi: (1) Star's mark is weak as it is only marginally suggestive and lacks secondary meaning; (2) the marks are dissimilar when viewed in the context of the entire packaging, which prominently displays the distinct 'Georgi' and 'Bacardi' brand names; (3) there was no credible evidence of actual consumer confusion; (4) there was no evidence Bacardi acted in bad faith to exploit Star's goodwill; and (5) consumers of alcoholic beverages are sophisticated enough to distinguish the products. One factor, competitive proximity, favored Star because vodka and rum are sold in the same stores to the same consumers. Two factors (bridging the gap and quality of products) were neutral. Upon balancing these factors, the court concluded that Star failed to prove a likelihood of confusion.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of the two-part test for trademark infringement, emphasizing that protectability and likelihood of confusion are distinct inquiries. The court established that even a minimally stylized letter or shape can be 'inherently distinctive' and thus protectable without proof of secondary meaning. However, the decision demonstrates that the 'strength' of such a mark is a critical factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis. By categorizing Star's mark as 'weak,' the court showed that infringement is difficult to prove when prominent, dissimilar brand names are used on the products, effectively preventing consumer confusion.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Star Industries, Inc. v. Bacardi & Company Limited (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature