Team Tires Plus, Ltd. v. Tires Plus, Inc.
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 198, 394 F.3d 831, 73 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1473 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federally registered trademark's protection extends beyond directly competing goods or services to include "related" goods or services that consumers might associate with the trademark holder, and the scope of a trademark for "technical aid and assistance in the establishment of businesses" typically encompasses franchising services.
Facts:
- Team Tires Plus, Ltd. began using the name "Tires Plus" in 1981 for its business of franchising and operating retail tire stores and automobile maintenance centers.
- In 1983, Team Tires Plus, Ltd. registered the "Tires Plus" trademark for "rendering technical aid and assistance in the establishment of automobile tire stores and automobile maintenance centers."
- In 1986, Tires Plus Inc. opened its first retail tire store, also named "Tires Plus," in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
- Team Tires Plus, Ltd. first sent objection letters to Tires Plus Inc. regarding its use of the name in May 1994 and July 1995.
- Tires Plus Inc. declined to stop using the "Tires Plus" name.
- Team Tires Plus, Ltd., then primarily a Midwestern business, decided to defer further action until it expanded operations into New Mexico or a neighboring state.
- In 2000, Team Tires Plus, Ltd. was acquired by Morgan Tires & Auto, Inc. and began a national expansion, operating in twenty-four states, including Colorado and Oklahoma, with imminent plans to expand into New Mexico.
- After further unsuccessful demands on Tires Plus Inc. to discontinue its use of the "Tires Plus" name, Team Tires Plus, Ltd. filed suit.
Procedural Posture:
- Team Tires Plus, Ltd. filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit against Tires Plus Inc. under the Lanham Act in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
- The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing Team Tires Plus, Ltd.'s claims.
- Team Tires Plus, Ltd. appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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:
Did the district court err in granting summary judgment to the defendant by (1) incorrectly limiting trademark protection only to directly competing uses of a mark, and (2) misinterpreting the scope of the plaintiff's federally registered "Tires Plus" trademark to exclude franchising services?
Opinions:
Majority - McConnell, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court erred in granting summary judgment by misapplying trademark law and misinterpreting the plaintiff's registered mark. First, the district court wrongly concluded that trademark protection only applies when the defendant uses the mark on directly competing goods. This premise is outdated; trademark rights extend to non-competing but "related" goods or services that consumers might associate with the trademark holder, reflecting the broader scope of consumer confusion, including sponsorship or affiliation. (Citing Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co., Yale Elec. Corp. v. Robertson, and Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp.). Second, the district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of Team Tires Plus, Ltd.'s trademark, which was registered for "rendering technical aid and assistance in the establishment of automobile tire stores and automobile maintenance centers," to exclude franchising. The court found that the USPTO's standard definition of franchising and the history of Team Tires Plus, Ltd.'s application confirm that this language specifically covers franchising operations. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for the district court to apply the correct "likelihood of confusion" analysis, considering all six factors and the potential for sponsorship or affiliation confusion (citing Amoco Oil Co. v. Rainbow Snow and King of the Mountain). The court also declined to address a separate argument regarding a prior-use defense for an additional store because Team Tires Plus, Ltd. failed to raise it in the district court.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of trademark protection under the Lanham Act within the Tenth Circuit. It definitively rejects the outdated "competing use" requirement, reinforcing that trademark rights extend to "related goods" and services where there is a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding source, sponsorship, or affiliation. By affirming that "technical aid and assistance in establishment" covers franchising, the ruling strengthens protection for franchisors and service-based businesses, emphasizing that courts should interpret trademark registrations consistent with USPTO definitions and industry practice. Future cases will rely on a comprehensive multi-factor "likelihood of confusion" analysis rather than a narrow interpretation of direct competition.
