Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atlantic Operating Co.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28000, 509 F.3d 380, 85 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1251 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A multi-factor test for likelihood of confusion is merely a set of proxies for the ultimate statutory inquiry and can be superseded by direct visual evidence when the overall trade dress of two products is so dissimilar that no reasonable consumer would be confused as to their origin.
Facts:
- Top Tobacco, L.P. has sold roll-your-own tobacco for over a century under its well-known TOP® trademark, which features an image of a spinning top.
- North Atlantic Operating Company also has a long history in the market, selling tobacco products under its distinctive ZIG-ZAG® brand, featuring a picture of a Zouave soldier.
- In 2001, North Atlantic introduced a redesigned can for its ZIG-ZAG® tobacco that included the phrase 'Fresh-Top™ Canister' to refer to its pull-tab lid design.
- The overall visual appearance of the two companies' products, including colors, typography, logos, and primary brand names, was highly distinct.
- In 2006, North Atlantic removed the 'Fresh-Top Canister' phrase when it replaced the pull-tab lid with a plastic one.
Procedural Posture:
- Top Tobacco, L.P. filed suit against North Atlantic Operating Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, North Atlantic.
- The plaintiff, Top Tobacco, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 a company's use of a common word in a descriptive phrase on its packaging, such as 'Fresh-Top Canister,' infringe on a competitor's registered trademark for that word when the products' overall branding, logos, and trade dress are starkly different?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Chief Judge.
No. A company's descriptive use of a common word does not constitute trademark infringement when there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. The court found that the visual evidence was dispositive; the trade dresses of the TOP® and ZIG-ZAG® products are so different that it is 'next to impossible' for any consumer to be confused about the products' origins. The court reasoned that multi-factor tests for confusion are merely proxies for the statutory inquiry and are unnecessary when it is clear that consumers are not being misled. The defendant used 'Fresh-Top' not as a brand, but as a descriptive adjective for the canister's lid. Furthermore, the plaintiff provided no empirical evidence of actual confusion, such as consumer surveys. The court also rejected the dilution claim, holding that the word 'top' is too common in general language and within the tobacco industry to be considered a 'famous' mark deserving of such broad protection.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes a pragmatic, real-world approach to trademark infringement analysis, prioritizing the ultimate question of consumer confusion over a rigid, mechanical application of the traditional multi-factor test. It empowers district courts to grant summary judgment in cases where visual evidence clearly negates any likelihood of confusion, even if some factors of the formal test might favor the plaintiff. This ruling reinforces the high bar for a mark to be deemed 'famous' for dilution purposes and affirms that common words used in their descriptive sense are unlikely to be successfully claimed as the exclusive property of a single entity.
