Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC
898 F.3d 1279 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a trade dress infringement claim involving expensive products sold to sophisticated consumers, prominent and distinct branding on a competitor's product can defeat a finding of likelihood of confusion, even if a design feature is similar. For a trade secret claim, a company fails to make reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy when it allows an employee to store sensitive information on personal devices without a confidentiality agreement or instructions for its protection.
Facts:
- Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. manufactures high-end fishing boats and claims a unique 'swept' sheer line (the line where the hull meets the deck) as its protected trade dress.
- In 2006, Yellowfin hired Kevin Barker as vice president of sales.
- Yellowfin presented Barker with an employment agreement containing confidentiality clauses, but Barker never signed it.
- During his employment, Yellowfin encouraged Barker to store company information, including customer lists, on his personal laptop and phone.
- Barker resigned from Yellowfin in 2014 to found a competing company, Barker Boatworks, LLC.
- On his last day at Yellowfin, Barker downloaded hundreds of files from the company's server, including customer lists, specifications, and manufacturing information.
- Barker hired a marine architect to design a boat for his new company, which featured a sheer line that Yellowfin alleged was nearly identical to its own.
- Barker Boatworks began selling its boats, which featured its own prominent and distinct logos, in the same niche market as Yellowfin.
Procedural Posture:
- Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. filed a complaint against Barker Boatworks, LLC and Kevin Barker in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (trial court).
- Yellowfin filed its First Amended Complaint, pleading claims including trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and violation of Florida's Trade Secret Act.
- After discovery, Barker Boatworks moved for summary judgment on all of Yellowfin's claims.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in full for Barker Boatworks, finding no protectable trade dress and no protectable trade secrets.
- Yellowfin, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 competitor's use of a similar boat sheer line create a likelihood of consumer confusion sufficient for a trade dress infringement claim when both products bear prominent, distinct logos and are sold in a niche market to sophisticated buyers? Did the plaintiff take reasonable efforts to protect its customer information as a trade secret when it encouraged an employee to store the information on personal devices without a signed confidentiality agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, J.
No. The competitor's use of a similar sheer line does not create a likelihood of confusion, and the plaintiff failed to take reasonable efforts to protect its alleged trade secrets. Regarding the trade dress claim, the court applied the seven-factor test for likelihood of confusion and found it weighed in favor of Barker Boatworks. The court determined Yellowfin's sheer line was a weak trade dress because similar designs are 'ubiquitous' in the market. While some factors favored Yellowfin (similarity of products and advertising), they were outweighed by dispositive factors. The court emphasized that the consumers in this 'niche' market for expensive boats are sophisticated and discerning, making them less susceptible to confusion. Most importantly, the court found no evidence of actual confusion, which is the 'best evidence of a likelihood of confusion.' The prominent and distinct logos on Barker's boats, along with other design differences, would prevent a sophisticated consumer from being confused in a post-sale context. On the trade secret claim, the court held that Yellowfin's customer list was not protected because the company failed to make reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. By encouraging Barker to store the information on personal devices, failing to have him sign a confidentiality agreement, and not demanding the return of the data upon his departure, Yellowfin 'effectively abandoned all oversight' of the information's security.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in trade dress cases involving product design, particularly in markets with sophisticated consumers. The court's emphasis on the weakness of the trade dress and the lack of actual confusion shows that mere similarity of a single feature is insufficient when other factors, like prominent branding and consumer sophistication, mitigate any risk of confusion. The ruling serves as a strong precedent for defendants who can demonstrate that their clear branding prevents consumers from being misled about the product's origin. Additionally, the trade secret holding provides a stark warning to companies that internal security measures like password-protected servers are insufficient if not paired with strict policies and contractual obligations governing employees' handling of confidential data on personal devices.
