Rare Summary Judgment of No Likelihood of Confusion

Posted on March 13, 2008 by R. David Donoghue

Allen Bros., Inv. v. AB Foods LLC, No. 06 C 1269, 2008 WL 345600 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2008) (Andersen, J.).

Judge Andersen granted defendant AB Foods summary judgment of likelihood of confusion and dismissed plaintiff Allen Brothers’ Lanham Act claim and related state law trademark infringement claim. Allen Brothers, a seller of gourmet meats, argued that AB Foods infringed its AB trademark by using it to sell AB Foods’ gourmet meats. The Court held that this was the rare case that was so one-sided as to warrant summary judgment that there was no likelihood of confusion, even though AB Foods uses its AB mark in direct competition with Allen Brothers: 

  • The marks were not similar because Allen Brothers always used its full name along with its AB mark;
  • Allen Brothers’ customers are sophisticated meat purchasers, as evidenced by Allen Brothers’ high prices;
  • The strength of Allen Brothers’ mark is in its full name, not just AB;
  • Allen Brothers’ produced no evidence of actual confusion; and
  • Allen Brothers produced no evidence that AB Foods intended to pass off its meats as Allen Brothers products.

The Court, therefore, granted AB Foods summary judgment and dismissed the case.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No Colorado River Abstention in Copyright Cases

Posted on March 11, 2008 by R. David Donoghue

Prominent Consulting LLC v. Allen Bros., Inc., No. 07 C 6357, 2008 WL 373217 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2008) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow held that the Court had jurisdiction over plaintiff Prominent Consulting’s (“PC”) copyright claim and denied defendant Allen Brothers’ motion to stay based upon Colorado River abstention. The Court had subject matter jurisdiction over PC’s copyright infringement claim – based on source code PC wrote for Allen Brothers’ websites – because the claim was not controlled solely by the parties’ contract. At least some of PC’s copyrights existed before the parties entered the contract because PC wrote some of the code before signing the contract.

The case appeared ripe for Colorado River abstention: the parties were involved in state court proceedings paralleling the federal case; both cases arose out of the parties’ website-related agreement; and PC’s available relief was identical in each case because PC’s late federal registration prevents statutory copyright damages. But the Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the copyright claim prevented abstention. The Court cited Colorado River for the proposition that district courts lack discretion to stay cases involving exclusively federal claims.

Tags: , , , , , , ,