Lexplug logoLexplug

Synergistic International, LLC v. Jody Fine Korman

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
470 F.3d 162 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An award of an infringer's profits under the Lanham Act is an equitable remedy that does not require a finding of willful infringement, but its appropriateness must be determined by a court balancing a multi-factor test. A suggestive trademark is considered conceptually strong if its dominant word is not commonly used within its specific industry, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion with similar marks.


Facts:

  • In 1977, Synergistic International's predecessor-in-interest received a federal service mark for 'GLASS DOCTOR' for the 'installation of glass in buildings and vehicles.'
  • The 'GLASS DOCTOR®' mark became incontestable and has been used nationwide for a glass installation and repair business, with the majority of its business involving windshields.
  • In 1987, Jody Korman started a mobile windshield repair-only business in Virginia Beach, Virginia, under the name 'THE WINDSHIELD DOCTOR.'
  • In 2000, Korman, who was unaware of Synergistic's business, also used the name 'GLASS DOCTOR' as a single line item in the phone book to get an additional listing.
  • Korman obtained her own federal service mark for 'THE WINDSHIELD DOCTOR' on December 9, 2003.
  • Synergistic sent Korman a cease and desist letter in August 2004, demanding she stop using both names.
  • In response to the letter, Korman ceased all use of the 'GLASS DOCTOR' name but continued operating as 'THE WINDSHIELD DOCTOR,' believing her federal registration gave her the right to do so.
  • Synergistic did not have a business presence or use its 'GLASS DOCTOR®' mark in the Virginia Beach area until January 2005, after the dispute with Korman had begun.

Procedural Posture:

  • Synergistic International, LLC sued Jody Korman in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
  • After discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment to Synergistic, finding that Korman's mark infringed on Synergistic's trademark.
  • The district court held a bench trial solely on the issue of remedies.
  • Following the trial, the district court ordered the cancellation of Korman's trademark, issued an injunction against her use of the infringing marks, and awarded Synergistic over $142,000 in damages, representing Korman's profits.
  • Korman, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment on liability and damages to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Locked

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 the use of the trademark 'THE WINDSHIELD DOCTOR' for windshield repair services infringe upon the senior, incontestable trademark 'GLASS DOCTOR®' used for glass installation and repair services by creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge King

Yes, Korman's mark creates a likelihood of confusion and therefore infringes on Synergistic's trademark rights. The court affirmed the finding of liability by analyzing the seven-factor test for likelihood of confusion. It determined that Synergistic's 'GLASS DOCTOR®' mark is suggestive, not descriptive, because the dominant word 'doctor' suggests healing, which requires imagination to connect to glass repair. The mark was also found to be conceptually and commercially strong, increasing its scope of protection. Given the similarity of the marks (both dominated by 'DOCTOR'), the relatedness of the services, and other factors, a likelihood of confusion exists. However, the court vacated the district court's award of Korman's profits, holding that the lower court abused its discretion by failing to explicitly apply the principles of equity. The court adopted a six-factor test for lower courts to use when deciding whether to award a defendant's profits, clarifying that while willful infringement is a key factor, it is not an absolute prerequisite for such an award. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider damages under this new framework.



Analysis:

This decision is significant for establishing a clear equitable framework for awarding an infringer's profits in the Fourth Circuit, aligning it with other circuits. By adopting a formal six-factor test, the court provides lower courts with concrete guidance on exercising their discretion under the Lanham Act. Critically, the ruling clarifies that while willful infringement is not a strict requirement for the disgorgement of profits, it is a highly important consideration in a broader equitable analysis. This precedent both aids trademark holders in seeking monetary remedies in cases of non-willful infringement and protects defendants from punitive awards where an injunction alone would satisfy the equities, particularly when the parties were not direct competitors in the same geographic market.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Synergistic International, LLC v. Jody Fine Korman (2006)

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