Icon Health Fitness Inc

This is not an error, however, that requires reversal of the preliminary injunction.
Because the Nautilus and ICON machines vary in price from hundreds to thousands of dollars, the district court reasoned that it would be fair to expect that customers would carefully investigate the range of available products before purchasing.

that it was improper for the district court to consider this scant and ambiguous evidence of actual confusion in Nautilus's favor for purposes of granting a preliminary injunction. In conformity with that background principle, marks have traditionally been categorized along the following range of increasing distinctiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbitrary, or (5) fanciful. Interstellar Starship, 304 F.

the mark does not describe new orleans auction house the when god child get together product's features, but suggests them. ICON contend that this explanation is free crochet shawl pattern supported by the dissimilarity of the two marks. direct competitors in the market for home exercise equipment. 1997) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 21 cmt. A trademark holder may bring an action for infringement to prevent or recover for the unauthorized use of older woman naked photo its mark. Because we do not find that the district court applied the incorrect law, relied on clearly erroneous factual findings, or otherwise abused grants for secondary education its discretion in finding a likelihood of confusion to exist between the Bowflex and CrossBow marks, we affirm the grant of the preliminary injunction. We do not think it was error for the district court to find that "Bowflex" differed from descriptive marks such as "Japan Telecom," for a telecommunications business catering to Japanese clientele, id. This distinction, along with other differences in appearance, sound, and meaning, should, in ICON's view, operate to prevent a finding of similarity. The preliminary injunction was granted on July 14, 2003. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 12.
original trademark registration received by Nautilus is for the term "BOW-FLEX," but Nautilus has since procured additional trademarks on this term including "Bowflex," "BowFlex," and "BOW 3 In actuality, ICON, not Weider, is home construction cost calculator the manufacturer and source of the CrossBow machine. ICON takes the view that because "bow" is a common term, any comparison of the marks should focus more on the distinctive "flex" and "cross" components. Phillips; Sterling Appealed from: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Defendant-appellant in this trademark infringement suit, ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. We first consider ICON's challenge to the district court's finding that ICON's choice of the CrossBow as its brand name evinced an intent to confuse consumers. Before the call was terminated, the customer casually asked the Nautilus representative whether the company was "connected with detective marlowe philip private the Cross representative replied in the negative, the customer stated, "Oh, I thought it was the same maker, Wider or Weider," and admitted that she did not know these were two different companies.
The degree of similarity of the marks, proximity of the products and services, strength of the Bowflex mark, and similarity of marketing channels are all factors that the court found to favor Nautilus. This image does not directly describe the BowFlex exercise machine. Accordingly, as with the intent to confuse factor, we merely decline to weigh this factor in favor of Nautilus at this early stage in the proceeding. arbitrary, suggestive, and descriptive words are all capable of receiving trademark protection; generic terms, on the speed dating in toronto other hand, are not.
General Mills Fun Group, 611 F. 1999); see also Accuride Int'l, Inc. ; "ENTREPRENEUR," for a magazine targeted to small business owners, Entrepreneur Media, 279 F. In ICON's view, the addition of an explicit designation of source should negate any inference of intent to copy. 3d at 1391 ("A mark acquires secondary meaning if customers associate the mark with a particular source. 7 line between descriptive and suggestive marks can be difficult to draw.
According to the court, this strength merited a greater degree of trademark protection.

In the alternative, ICON contends that "bow" is at best descriptive, because it merely "describes a product, but does not inherently identify a particular source.

Moreover, BowFlex is a strong mark, and there is circumstantial evidence that CrossBow chose its name, incorporating "bow," to take advantage of BowFlex's strong mark. The total price on that would be 999 plus 129 shipping and handling. Nautilus responds that because circumstantial evidence of intent to copy is sufficient to suggest intentional infringement, it was not clear error for the district court to find intent to infringe on the law has long been established that if an infringer 'adopts his designation with the intent of deriving benefit from the reputation of the trade-mark or trade name, its intent may be sufficient to justify the inference that there are confusing similarities. It max muscle sports nutrition would be improper to extend trademark protection to a product's generic name because "it would effectively 'grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are. According to ICON, the product's resemblance to the medieval crossbow weapon inspired the brand name. S Court Of Appeals, for the federal Circuit States Court of Appeals for the Federal Paul T.
ICON therefore asserts that the word, "bow," is generic. The case was remanded to the district court for steps to becoming a model a determination of infringement under the correct claim construction. defendants for physical similarities" between their product and plaintiff's great tit and ass because "'functional' similarities alone. '" (internal citation omitted)).
A fanciful mark is a non-dictionary word concocted by the trademark holder for its product, whereas an arbitrary mark is a known word used in an unexpected or uncommon way. 3d at 1058 (finding the term "MovieBuff" to be suggestive because "it required a mental leap from the mark to the product" and did not merely "describe. In general, the factors should not be "rigidly weighed; we do not 142 F. Thus, despite acknowledged differences between the marks, Nautilus was deemed to prevail on these two Sleekcraft factors, similarity of marks next Sleekcraft factor considered by the district court was the strength of the registered mark. Because this factor did not favor either the plaintiff or the defendant, the court suggested that it was not of great assistance in determining likelihood of confusion. 3d at 1054, renders this argument somewhat dubious. . district court began its analysis by considering together two complementary Sleekcraft factors: the similarity of the Bowflex and CrossBow marks, and the similarity of the associated products. The customer called in reference to a CrossBow offer: C: I almost bought from Sears an advantage you know that NR: No, unfortunately I don't, sir.
Although this does imply that "similarity of the marks" is critical to an infringement inquiry, it does not suggest that a separate finding of causation, tied solely to the similarity of the marks, is required. " Preliminary Injunction Order, slip op. the defendant was as innocent as a fawn with no intent to copy. This admission shows only that the customer was confused by the source designation and the relationship of the companies, not by the closeness of the "Bowflex" and same is true of Call No. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see, e. 2d at is a closer question whether the term "bow," as applied to this particular class of exercise equipment, is descriptive. See Payless Shoe Source, Inc. For this reason, the district court determined that strength of the registered mark to be a factor court found that the fourth Sleekcraft factor, similarity of marketing channels, also weighed in favor of Nautilus.

On May 16, 2003, the district court granted ICON's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the Nautilus patents. In Nautilus's product, the Bowflex exerciser, the rods are arranged vertically; when a user pulls on a cable connected to the upper ends of the rods, the rods curve or structured to resist this outward movement, requiring exertion by the continuously produced the Bowflex exerciser since 1984, and holds two patents on related technology.

A strong mark is one that is inherently distinctive, such that it operates to clearly identify goods as originating with a particular guangzhou asia hotel international source. The Ninth Circuit has never held that, in addition to considering the Sleekcraft factors, a court must satisfy itself that a separate causal relationship exists between the similarity of the marks and consumer confusion. 2d at two marks is assessed through a bank lloyds offshore panama tsb comparison of their sight, sound, and meaning. § "word, name, symbol, or device" may be treated as a "trademark" if it is "used by a person" to "identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods.