Major Arent Fox Victory in Third Circuit for Client Sabinsa Corp. Reported by Law360
Intellectual Property Law360 has published an article on Arent Fox’s victory in a precedent-setting trademark dispute on behalf of client Sabinsa Corporation in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court August 27 denied a rehearing motion by defendant Creative Compounds, marking the final appellate chapter in Arent Fox’s landmark victory in a trademark case that has gone on for more than six years.
The case presents a very rare situation where an appellate court not only reversed a trial court ruling in favor of a defendant, but ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case confirms that a trademark plaintiff does not need to prove even one example of actual confusion in order to succeed in a trademark infringement case.
3rd Cir. Lets Sabinsa’s Win in Trademark Suit Stand
By Erin Coe
Law360, New York (August 31, 2010) – A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider its ruling that overturned a lower court’s decision in a long-running trademark infringement dispute between rival supplement-industry suppliers over a powered mint extract and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff Sabinsa Corp. without a new trial.
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Friday denied Creative Compounds LLC’s petition to rehear the case, upholding its finding that the lower court was wrong to grant summary judgment to Creative Compounds and conclude that the defendant’s marks would not cause confusion in the marketplace.
The ruling is significant because the appeals court sided with Sabinsa even though it did not present any proof of actual confusion, and the opinion emphasized that protection should be given strong marks against similar marks used on similar products regardless of whether there is evidence of actual confusion, according to a press release by Sabinsa and its law firm Arent Fox LLP.
For the full article, please click here. (Subscription required)
The Third Circuit’s July 9 opinion can be read here:
The Order denying Creative Compound’s motion for a rehearing may be found here.