u.s. polo ass'n v. prl usa holdings (s.d.n.y. may 13, 2011)

8/6/2019 U.S. Polo Ass'n v. PRL USA Holdings (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011)

1/61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

xUNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION,and USPA PROPERTIES, INC.,

INC.,

Pla in t i f f s , 09 Civ. 9476 OPINION

PRL USA HOLDINGS, INC.,L'OREAL USA, INC., and

At

- - )USDCSDNYefendants. DOCUMENTELECfRONICALLY F1LEDDOC #:

--xA P PEA RAN C E S: DATE FILED: l:\' 1 !I l

fo r Pla in t i f f sBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP45 Rockefe l le r PlazaNew York, NY 10111By: Gerald Ferguson, Esq.David Sheehan, Esq.

fo r Defendant L'Oreal USAtPAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP75 East 55 St ree tNew York, NY 10022By: Robert L. Sherman, Esq.At endant PRLKELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP101 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10178By: William R. Golden, J r . , Esq.


2/61

Sweet, D. J.

In th i s act ion , the pla in t i f f s Uni Sta tes PoloAssociat ion, Inc. ("USPAil ) and USPA Proper t ies , Inc.("Proper t ies" ) (col lec t ive ly , the "USPA Part ies" or"Plaint i f fs") sought a declara t ion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201:(1) t ha t they have the r igh t to l icense and s e l l in the UnitedSta tes fragrance products and packaging bearing "U.S. POLO

ASSN. ," the Double Horsemen Trademark and "1890,1 / and otherproducts bear ing the marks iden t i f in Trademark Applicat ionSer ia l Nos.products iden t i f i ed in those appl ica t ions i (2) that t h e i r useand l icens ing of such fragrance products and packaging does notviolate Sect ion 43(a) and (c ) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and (c), nor cons t i tu te infr ingement , di lu t ion orunfa i r competit ion with respect to the r igh t s of the defendantsPRL USA Holdings, Inc. ("PRL") and USA, Inc. (col lec t ive ly , the "PRL Part ies" or "Defendants") i and (3) t ha tthe i r use and l icens ing of such f ragrance products and packagingdoes not vio la te the common law of the Sta te of New Yorkre la t ing to trademark infringement, unfai r competi t ion andtrademark di lu t ion .

1


3/61

The PRL Par t ie s have brought counterclaims agains t theUSPA Par t ies fo r t rademark infr ingement , unfa i r compet i t ion, andt rademark di lu t ion under Sect ions 32, 43 (a) and 43 (c) theLanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125 (a) and (c), and commonlaw t rademark infr ingement , t rade dress infr ingement , t rademarkdi lu t ion , unfa i r compet i t ion, unfa i r and decept prac t ices ,and misappropr iat ion in vio la t ion of the s t a tu tory and commonlaw each s ta te which th e USPA Par t ie s do businessincluding New York General Business Law ("GBU') Sect ions 133,349 and 360 1. The PRL Par t ie s also f i l a motion fo r aprel iminary in junct ion.

Upon a l l proceedings had here in and the f indingsof fac t and conclusions of law se t for th ow, the USPAPar t i es ' reques t fo r a declara tory judgment i s denied, the PRLPar t , reques t fo r a permanent in junct ion i s granted.

Prior Proceedings

This act ion was commenced by the USPA Par t ie s onNovember 13, 2009, naming only PRL as a defendant . On FebruaryI I , 2010, L'Orea l ' s motion to intervene was granted. PRL f i l edi t s answer and counterclaims on February 16, 2010. On March 2,

2


4/61

2010, f i l ed i t s answer and counterclaims, and the PRLPar t ies moved fo r a pre l iminary in junct ion .

On consent of the par t i e s , the motion fo r aprel iminary in junct ion was converted in to a reques t fo r apermanent unct ion. The t r i a l and submission of evidence washeld from September 27 through September 30, 2010. Finalargument was held on November 17 , 201 0.

Findings o f Fact

The Par t ies

USPA i s a not for -prof i t I l l i no i s corporat ion with aplace of business a t 4307 I ron Works Parkway, Sui te 110,Lexington, Kentucky 40511. USPA i s the governing body of thespor t of polo in the United Sta te s . (Tr. 137:3-6 . 1 ) I t has beenin exis tence cont inual ly s 1890. (Tr . 14 6 : 2 3 14 7 : 7 . ) USPAder ives the major i ty of i t s revenue from roya l t i es received as ar e su l t of l icensing i t s trademarks. (Tr. 297:23-299:4 . )

Proper t ies i s an I l l i no i s corporat ion with a place ofbusiness a t 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 430, Lexington, Kentucky

-Tr . " denotes a c i t a t i on to the t r i a l t r an sc r ip t .

3


5/61

40503, and i s a wholly-owned subsidiary of USPA. Proper t i e s 'e funct ion i s to manage the 1 ing program of USPA. (Tr .

297:23 299:4. )

PRL i s a Delaware corpora t ion with a place of businessa t 650 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. PRL i s the owner andl i censo r of the t rademarks of Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation,

luding Polo Player Logo and "POLO" used in connectionwith f ragrances.

L'Oreal i s a Delaware corporation with a place ofbusiness a t 575 f th Avenue, New York, NY 10017. L'Orealthe exclusive l icensee of cer t a in PRL trademarks in thecategories of f ragrances, cosmetics and re la t ed goods, includingthe Polo ayer and "POLO."

in Issue

In the 1960s, Mr. Ralph Lauren s ta r ted s o w nbusiness , which today i s known as Polo Ralph Lauren Corporat ion.

In the l a t e 1970s, when the predecessor to PRL (alsore fer red to as PRL) decided to expand in to f ragrances, cosmetics

4


6/61

and re la ted products , an exclus ive l icense agreement was ente redin to with L'Oreal . (Deposit ion of Negar Darsses 25:21-26:9.)

In 1978, the f i r s t fragrance int roduced in to themarket under t ha t l icense appeared in a green bo t t l e andpackaging and prominently fea tured , and to t h i s day cont inues tofea ture , the logo known as the "Polo Player Logo," as well asthe word mark "POLO" and l e s s prominently "Ralph Lauren." (Tr.3 5 : 4 - 9 i PRL Ex. 2 6 . 2)

That fragrance has been sold cont inuously fo r 32 yearsand was voted in to the indus t ry ' s Fragrance Foundat ion 'S Hal l ofFame. (Tr. 52: 13 - 21 . )

Beginning in approximately 2002, the PRL Par t i e s beganadding new men's f ragrances to the l i ne , each prominentlydisplaying the Polo Player Logo and the word mark "POLO." In2002, POLO Ralph Lauren BLUE was launched, followed by POLOBLACK in 2005, POLO DOUBLE BLACK in 2006, POLO EXPLORER in 2007and POLO Ralph Lauren RED, WHITE & BLUE in 2009. (Tr. 36: 8-37 : 2 1 i PRL Exs. 11, 27 - 3 1 . ) The PRL Par t i e s recent ly in t roducedfour new fragrances to the marketplace , re fe r red to as the "Big

"PRL Ex." denotes a c i t a t i on to a t r i a l exh ib i t submi t ted by the PRLPar t i e s , and "USPA Ex." denotes a c i t a t ion to a t r i a l exh ib i t submi t ted bythe USPA Par t i e s .

5


7/61

Pony Collection/II each d i aying the Polo ayer Logo and theword "POLO. II (PRL Exs. 32-35. )

All of the aforementioned PRL Par t f ragrances arestill being sold today. (Tr . 3 8 : 8 1 7 . ) The PRL Par t ies /products come ln di f fe ren t s izes and ors and exhib i tdi f fe ren t scents / but a l l them use the Polo Player Logo andthe word "POLO. II (Tr. 36:8-37:21i 51:11 19i PRL Exs. 26-35 . )

PRL owns a number of federa l trademark reg i s t ra t ionsfo r the Polo Player Logo / alone o r in combination with words /names/ symbols o r devices/ fo r f ragrances and re la t ed products /including/ among others / U.S. Reg. Nos. 1/212/060i 1 /327/818i2/922/574i 3/076/806i and 3/095/176/ as wel l as a pending usebased Trademark Applicat ion Ser ia l No. 77/883 ,516 . Those

s t r a t i ons are va l id and subsis t ing in PRL, with Reg. Nos.1,212,060 and 1,327,818 having a t ta ined incontes tab le s t a tus .(PRL Ex. 14.)

The USPA Trademarks Issue

USPA current ly owns more than 900 t rademarksworldwide, including "U. S. POLO ASSN. 1/ and the "Double Horsemen

6


8/61

IIar k t which a re the pr imary t rademarks o f USPA'S l i c ens ingprogram. (USPA Ex. 14; Tr. 163:16-165:6 . )

Exi s t i ng t rademark r e g i s t r a t i o n s with re spec t t o thesetwo pr imary marks inc lude : (a) Regi s t ra t ion No. 3,370,932 fo rUSPA and th e Double Horsemen Trademark i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class25i (b ) Regi s t ra t ion No. 3,598,829 fo r the Double HorsemenTrademark in I n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14, 18 and 25i (c )Regi s t ra t ion No. 2,188,594 fo r th e Double Horsemen TrademarkI n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 14 i (d) Regi s t ra t ion N o . 2 , 991,639 u.s.POLO ASSN. SINCE 1890 in I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 25i (e)Regi s t ra t ion N O . 2 , 282,427 fo r U. S. POLO ASSN. SINCE 1890 inI n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14 and 18 i (f) R e g i s t r a t i o n N o . 2 , 908,391fo r U.S. POLO ASSN. i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14 and 18; and (g)Regi s t ra t ion No. 3,367,242 fo r U.S. POLO ASSN. I n t e r n a t i o n a lClass 25. 3

USPA began to commercia l ly l i c e n s e its t r ademarks inth e e a r ly 1980s, b ut d id no t a c t i v e ly l i c e n s e in th e UnitedSta t e s u n t i l 1998. (Tr . 167: 19 - 168 : 15 . )

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 14 covers " [ p ] re c ious meta l s and t h e i r a l loys andgoods in p rec i o u s meta ls o r coa ted the rewi th , not inc luded i n o t h e r c l a s s e s ;j ewel ry , p r ec i o u s s tone s ; ho ro log ic a l and chronomet r ic i n s t ru men t s . /II n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 18 covers " [ l j e a t h e r and imi ta t ions o f l ea the r , and goodsmade of these ma te r i a l s and no t inc luded in o t h e r c l a s s e s ; animal sk ins ,h ides i t runks and t r a v e l l i n g bags i umbrel las paraso l s and walking s t i c k s iwhips harness and sa dd le ry . /I I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 25 covers " [ c ] lo th ing ,foo twear , headgear . " See 37 C.F.R. 6 . 1 .

7


9/61

The USPA Par t ie s and the i r l icensees havemanufactured, marketed, and sold products bear ing the words"U. S. POLO ASSN. [[ and the "Double Horsemen Mark, II numerousapparel and accessory categor ies . The products have been sold

more than 5,000 independent r e t a i l s tores throughout theUni ted Sta tes , luding major nat ional chains such as Kohl 's ,J .C. Penney, Sears , Ross, Peebles , Goody's, Dr. J ' s , and StageStores , as well as in f i f t een USPA out le t s to res . (Tr .209:22

210:2. )

JRA Trademark Company Ltd. ("JRA") i s USPA's masterl icensee in Uni ted Sta tes f ragrances and a l l productsother than es and watches. (Tr. 166: 15 18.)

In 2008, USPA commenced discuss ions with JRA aboutexpanding in to the fragrance market. (Tr. 212:24 213:4-8.)

In 2009, JRA designed packaging use on a USPAmen's fragrance t ha t featured the Double Horsemen Mark, whichwas being used by USPA on appare l . (Tr . 214 : 22 24.) Thepackaging used a dark blue background as i t s predominant color ,with the Double Horsemen Mark, accompanying word mark l e t t e r ingas well as a th in l ine crea t ing a border around the per imeter of

8


10/61

the f ront panel I appearing in gold . (PRL Ex. 16; Tr. 54:1-5 5 : 2 1 . )

Approximately 10 , 000 uni t s USPA's fragrance bearingthe Double Horsemen Mark were produced in November 2009. (Tr.277:11 15 . ) Around t ha t t ime and shor t ly thereaf te r , USPA'sf ragrance product was offered fo r sale a t USPA ou t l e t s tores andthrough V.I.M. Jeans s tores . (Tr. 2 2 1 : 2 0 - 2 2 2 : 7 . ) BetweenNovember 2009 and March 2010 , approximately 3 ,500 uni t s weresold through USPA out l e t s tores . (Tr. 278: 10 13 . )

On March 19 , 2010 , counsel fo r USPA represented inwri t ing to t h i s Court tha t USPA agreed to "immediately cease a l lsa le s of fragrance products , and use packaging bearing theDouble Horsemen mark and to re f ra in from adver t i s ing, offer ingfo r sa le , se l l ing , t r ans fer r ing or donating fragrance productsand packaging bear ing Double Horsemen Trademark" un t i l a f t e rthe decis ion on the PRL Par t i e s ' motion fo r a prel iminaryin junct ion motion. (Tr . 2 7 7 : 16 - 2 5 . ) On March 24 , 2 010 , theUSPA's wri t t en submission was "so ordered" by the Court.

In addi t ion to the approximately 3 ,500 uni t s of theUSPA Par t i e s ' fragrance t ha t were sold, approximately 1 , 000 werereca l led and quarant ined. (Tr. 2 7 8 : 1 - 2 7 9 : 7 . ) Approximately

9


11/61

5,500 uni t s are unaccounted for , except to the extent it i sknown tha t they were so ld to V.I.M. Jeans a t some po in t in t ime.(T r . 2 7 8 : 14 - 2 5 . ) I t i s not known whether they continued to beso ld af te r March 19, 2010. (Tr. 279: 1- 4 . )

Prior L it ion

In 1984, USPA and i t s l icensees commenced an act ion in

th i s cour t agains t PRL fo r a declara tory judgment t ha t var iousar t i c l es of merchandise bear ing a mounted polo player symbol d idnot in f r inge PRL's Polo Player Logo. PRL counterclaimedt rademark infr ingement . The mat te r came before the HonorableLeonard B. Sand.

In h is Order ( the "1984 Order") , Judge Sand deniedUSPA's reques t fo r a judgment of non infr ingement , found tha tUSPA and i t s l icensees inf r inged PRL's Polo Player Logo, POLO,POLO BY RALPH LAUREN trademarks and PRL's t rade dress , andengaged in unfa i r compet i t ion. (USPA Ex. 15 8 9 . ) The 1984Order enjoined USPA and i t s l icensees from in f r ing ing PRL'smarks, including the Polo Player Logo and the word "POLO," butnot from engaging in a l icensing program t ha t did not usein f r ing ing trademarks. Spec i f i ca l ly , the 1984 Order permit tedUSPA to conduct a r e t a i l l icensing program using i t s name, "a

10


12/61

mounted polo player or equest r ian or equine symbol which i sdis t inc t ive f r o m . [PRL's] polo player symbol in i t s contentand perspect ive,U and other trademarks t ha t r e f e r to the spor tof polo, subjec t to cer t a in condi t ions and r e s t r i c t ions se tfor th in the 1984 Order. ( I d . 9 i Tr. 16 9 : 9 - 2 5 . ) Paragraph 8of the 1984 Order bars any use of the "United Sta tes PoloAssociat ion ll name or o ther name "which emphasizes the word POLO(or the words U.S. Polo), separa te , apar t and d i s t inc t from any

such name in a manner t ha t i s l ike ly to cause confusion." (USPAEx. 15 8 .)

The requirements of the 1984 Order are incorporatedin to 1 subl icense agreements in to which JRA enters and in tothe so- led "Brand Rule Book" generated by USPA. (Tr. 170:22-178 :18 i USPA Ex. 19.)

Conclusions o f Law

I . Claims Under Lanham Act 32 & 43(a)

The par t i e s a s se r t cla ims under both Sect ion 32 of theLanham Act, fo r t rademark infr ingement , and Sect ion 43(a) , fo r

11


13/61

f a l se des igna t ion or ig in o r passing of f . 4 Sect ion 43 (a ) ofthe Lanham Act proh ib i t s the use in commerce of any word, term,name, symbol, device , or combinat ion thereof t ha t

i s 1 to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, o rto as to the a f f i l i a t i o n , connect ion, oras soc ion of such person wi another person, or asto the orig in , sponsorsh ip , or approval of h i s o rgoods, se rv ices , o r comme a c t i v i t i e s by anotherperson

15 U.S.C. 1125 (a) (1) and (a) (1) (A) 5

Sect ion 32 of the Lanham Act provides in r e levan t pa r t :

(1) Any person who sha l l , without th e consent of ther e g i s t r a n t -

(a) use in commerce any reproduc t ion , coun te r f e i t ,copy, o r colorable imi ta t ion of a reg i s t e red mark inconnect ion wi th the e of any goods o rse rv ices on o r in connect ion wi th which such use i sl i ke ly to cause confusion, or to cause mi or todeceivei or(b) reproduce, coun te r f e i t , copy, o r colorably imi ta tea reg i s t e red mark apply such to l abe l s ,s igns , pr i n t s , packages, wrappers, es o radver t i sements in tended to be used in commerce upon orin connect ion wi th sale. . of goods or s e rv iceson o r in connect ion with which such use i s l ike ly tocause confusion, o r to cause mistake, o r to deceive ,

s ha l l be l i ab l e in a 1 ac t ion .

The PRL Par t ie s do not pursue t he i r di lu t ion cla ims. PRL Par t ie s Post -Tr ia l Memorandum of Law a t 1 n.1 .

pro tec t s both reg is te red and t rademarks.v. Google Inc" 562 F.3d 123, 12 8 n.3 (2d Cir. 2009) (c i t ingU.S. 763, 768 {1992}}.

12

Section 43 (a )505

4


14/61

15 U.S.C. 1114.

In order to p reva i l in an act ion for t rademarkinfr ingement under Sect ion 43(a) , a par ty must es tab l i sh , underthe two-prong t e s t Gruner + Jahr USA Publ ' v . MeredithCorp. , 991 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir . 1993), (1) tha t it possesses aval id , l ega l ly protec tab le trademark and (2) t ha t the jun ioruser ' s mark i s l ike ly to cause confusion as to the or ig in orsponsorship of the product a t i ssue . Virgin Enterpr ises v.Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir . 2003) (c i t ing Gruner, 991 F.2da t 1074 (2d r . 1993)) . This two-prong t e s t i s appl icable tot rademark infringement c l brought under both Sect ion 32 andSect ion 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Virgin Enterpr ises , 335 F. 3da t 148 (c i t ing Time Inc. v. Petersen Publ ' Co. L. L. C ., 173F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir . 1999)). Accordingly, both claims wil l beanalyzed together here.

A. The PRL Part ies' Mark i s Valid and Enti t led to Protect ion

"To va l id and protec tab le , a mark must be capableof dis t inguish ing the products it marks from those of others . ItLane Capi ta l Mgmt., Inc. v. Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., Inc . , 192 F.3d337, 344 (2d Cir . 1999). In t h i s rcu i t , sca le ar t i cu la ted

13


15/61

by Judge Friendly in Abercrombie & Fitch----.------------ Inc. / 537 F.2d 4/ 9 (2d Cir. 1976) / i s t r ad i t iona l ly u t i l i zed todetermine the dis t inc t iveness of a mark. The Abercrombiecontinuum c l as s i f i es marks from l e a s t to most dis t inc t ive incategories : generic/ descr ipt ive / suggestive/ arb i t ra ry orfanc iful . The Second Circui t has elaborated th i s continuum asfollows:

A generic mark i s genera l ly a common descr ipt ion of goods/one that refers / or has come to be understood as re fer r ing/to the genus of which the par t icu la r product i s a species.A descr ipt ive mark descr ibes a product ' s features/qua l i t i es or ingredients in ordinary language/ or descr ibesthe use to which a product i s put . A suggest ive markemploys terms which do not describe but merely suggest thefeatures of the product / requi r ing the purchaser to useimagination/ thought and perception to reach a conclusionas to the nature of goods. [T]he term "fanciful/II as ac lass i fying concept, i s usual ly appl ied to words inventedsole ly for t h e i r use as t rademarks. When the same lega lconsequences a t tach to a common word/ i . e . , when it isappl ied in an unfami l iar way, the use i s ca l led"arb i t ra ry . I

Genesee Co. Inc.. ____________ Co., 124 F.3dtroh 137,____ __142 (2d Cir. 1997) ( inte rna l quotations and c i ta t ions omitted) .

A mark's dis t inc t iveness determines i t s leve lprotec t ion . At one end, \\ [g] ener ic marks are not protec table ."Lane Capital Mgmt., 192 F.3d a t 344. While a t the other /"[f ]anci ful , a rb i t ra ry , and suggest ive marks are deemedinherent ly dis t inc t ive ll and so "wil l be automatical lyprotec ted ." rd . Descriptive marks f a l l in between the two

14


16/61

extremes. See Pret Girl Inc. v. Pret Girl Fashions Inc. , -- F. Supp. 2d No. 11 0662 (NGG) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. March14,2011) .

The word "polo" may be c, for example, withrespect to polo sh i r t s , or descr ipt ive , with respect to aspectsof the spor t . With respect to men's fragrances, the PRLPar t i es ' contend tha t the POLO word mark and Polo Player Logo

are arb i t ra ry . As Judge Sand s t a t ed in h i s 1984 opinion,"[p]olo is ce r t nly not suggest ive or descr ipt of afragrance which a to i l e t manufacturer would seek to imita te ."U.S. Polo Associat ion, Inc. v. Polo Fashions, Inc . , No. 84 Civ.1142 (LBS) , 1984 WL 1309, a t *14 (Dec. 1984) ( "SandOpinion") . There i s no natura l connection between the imagea polo player and fragrance products . The same i s t rue of thePOLO word mark.

ProductsInc . , 451 F. Supp. 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), Judge Goettel heldt ha t the use of POLO on t i e s i s fanc i fu l . Judge Sand concluded" tha t it would low a fo r t i o r i and is demonstrated in therecord in th i s case t ha t the use of POLO in a trademark sense onnon-apparel i tems unrelated to the spor t , such as homefurnishings, is a fanc iful , not a descr ipt ive use." Sand

In Polo Fashions Inc. v. Extra

15


17/61

Opinion, 1984 WL 1309, a t *3. This Court s imi la r ly concludestha t as a common word or symbol appl i an unfami l iar way, POLOand the Polo Player Logo qual i fy as arb i t ra ry and there"wil l be automatical ly protec ted ." Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., 192 F.3da t 344.

Regardless, PRL owns a number of federal trademarkreg i s t ra t ions fo r the Polo Player Logo, alone or in combination

with words, names, symbols or devices, for f ragrances andre la ted products , including, among others , u.s. Nos.1 , 212 , 060 i I , 327 , 818 i 2 , 922 , 574 i 3 , 076 , 806 i and 3 , 095 , 176 , aswell as a pending use-based Trademark Application No.77/883,516. "A cer t i f i ca te of reg is t ra t ion with PTO isprima facie evidence t ha t the mark i s reg is te red and va l idi . e . , pro tec t ib le ) , tha t reg i s t ran t owns the mark, and tha t

reg i s t ran t has the exc lus ive r igh t to use the mark incommerce." Lane . , 192 F.3d a t 345 (c i t ing

900 F. 2d 558, 563 (2d Cir.1990)). The USPA Par t ie s have not rebut ted t h i s presumption.

As reg i s t arb i t ra ry marks, PRL's Polo PlayerLogo and POLO trademarks as used in the context here on men'sf ragrances, are able .

16


18/61

B. The Polaroid Factors

I t i s well es tabl ished t ha t the e ight fac tors se tfor th in Polaroid Elec ts . . , 287 F.2d 492(2nd Cir. 1961), cer t . denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961), control theanalysis of whe there i s a l ike l ihood of confusion intrademark ringement cases in s Circui t . Those factorsinclude: (1 ) s t rength of h is mark, (2) the degree of

s imi l between the two marks, (3) the proximity theproducts , (4) the l ikel ihood t ha t pr io r owner wil l bridgethe gap, (5) actual confusion, (6) the rec iproca l of defendant ' sgood th in adopting i t s own mark, (7) the qual i ofdefendant ' s product , and (8) the sophis t ica t ion of the buyers.Id. a t 495. '" [E]ach fac tor must be eval in the context ofhow it bears on the ul t imate question of l ike l ihood of confusionas to the source of the product . ' " Brennan's Inc. v. Brennan'sRest . L.L,C' r 360 F.3d 125, 130 (2d Cir.2004) (quot Lois- ............--''------

U.S.A. Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867,872 (2d Cir. 1986))

For the reasons s t a t ed below, under the Polaroidanalysis , USPA's use of the Double Horsemen and "U.S. POLO ASSN.

17


19/61

1890" marks in the con tex t and manner6 in which they have beenused on a men's f ragrance in f r inges the PRL Pa r t i e s 't rademark r i g h t s .

As a th r e sho l d i s sue , th e USPA P a r t i e s contend t h a tJudge Sand ' s 1984 Order was the p roduct a Polaroid ana lys i sand t h a t to p r e v a i l th e PRL P a r t i e s must show t h a t th e USPAPar t ie s v io la ted th e 1984 Order . This Cour t conducts an

independent a ro id ana lys i s , as USPA does not seek to use themarks a t i s sue in the 1984 case o r in th e con tex t o f the samemarket cond i t i ons . 7 Judge Sand ' s 1984 Order an t i c ipa tes reapp l i ca t ion o f Po laro id by pe rmi t t i ng USPA to conduct al i c ens ing program us ing "a mounted polo p l a y e r o r eques t r i an o requine symbol which i s d i s t iv e from [PRL's] polop laye r symbol its co n ten t and pe rspec t ive , " b ut ba r r i ng anyuse of the "United Sta t e s Polo Associa t ion" name or o the r name6 Except as pertain to i t s findings regarding USPA's good f a i th , theCour t ' s Lanham Act i s based upon USPA's use of the , not blue,t rade dress , because the USPA Par t ie s withdrew the i r use of blue t rade dressduring the course of th i s l i t i ga t i on (Dkt. 45), and represented to the Courtt ha t "as of March 17, 2010 they have ceased, and wil l not resume, use of thecolor blue as the color for the packaging of any of Pla in t i f f s 'fragrance products." Oral Argument Transcr ip t 48:23 24) ("We're notusing i t , never going to use i t " ) . Were USPA to use blue t rade dress , th i smight weigh more heavi in favor of the PRL Par t i e s ' claims because of thePRL Par t i es ' use of blue t radedress in t he i r best se l l ing POLO BLUE l ine (Tr.39:11-25; 52:1-12; PRL Ex . 15), and Judge Sand's 1984 order prohib i t ingUSPA's use of blue t rade dress ut i l i z ing white or s i lve r l e t t e r ing oremphasizing the world "POLO." (USPA Ex . 15 8-9. )7 USPA's Double Horsemen Mark did not ex i s t pr i o r to 1996. Brandawareness of PRL's Polo Player Logo in 1984 was approximately 37%, 1984Opinion a t **12-13, while today it i s 82 85%. (PRL Ex. 13.) In 1984 PRL hadonly one fragrance product tha t displayed the Polo Player Logo, while todayit has a t l eas t nine. (Tr. 36:8-37:21 (Marino); PRL Par t ie s Exs. 26 35.)

18


20/61

" in a manner t ha t i s l ike ly to cause confusion." (USPA Ex . 15 8-9.) analys is of which symbols are d i s t i nc t i ve fromPRL/ S Polo Player logo-- tha t iS not in f r ing ing and whether the"United Sta tes Polo Associat ion" name o r o the r name i s used in amanner tha t " i s l ike to cause confusion" requi res appl ica t ion

Polaroid. In f inding a l ike l ihood confusion l the Courtduly notes t ha t the USPA par t i es have viola ted the 1984 Orderinsofar as it prohib i ted USPA/s adopt ion of in f r ing ing marks.

lNor are the PRL Par t ie s cla ims forec losed by a j u ry / sf inding in 2006 t ha t while (1) USPA/s id Double Horsemen markin f r inged PRL/s Polo ayer Symbol (2) the so l id DoubleHorsemen mark with "USPA out l ine Double Horsemen mark I andIout l ine Double Horsemen mark with "USPN' were not in f r ing ing

Inc. v.he context of the appare l market. PRL USAUni Polo Associat ion Inc ' l No. 99 Civ. 10199(GBD),2 0 0 6 WL 18 81 744 (S . D . N . Y . 2 0 0 6) I a f f I d 52 0 F . 3 d 1 0 9 ( 2 d C r .2008 ) Most sa l i en t l y , the marks a t i ssue here are employed inthe context f ragrances, not appare l . This case involves theuse of the Double Horsemen mark with the word mark "U. S. POLOASSN. 1890," not a lone o r with "USPA" beneath. In con t ras t tothe 2006 apparel case, the dominant term in the word port ion ofUSPA's mark here and t ha t which consumers are most l ike ly toview as having t rademark s igni f icance- i s "POLO." As the

19


21/61

Trademark Tr ia l and Appeal Board noted in re jec t USPA'ssummary judgment motion regarding use of the marks a t i s suehere fo r f ragrances and other products in Class 3 ,8 th i s i s suehere "involves di f fe ren t t ransac t iona l fac ts mater ia l to theclaim. Therefore the d i s t r i c t cour t s order [ in the apparell i t iga t ion] does not have prec lus ive ef fec t on t h i s proceeding."

For same reasons, the apparelPRL Ex.l i t i ga t i on is not control l ing 10

1. The Strength of the PRL Parties' Marks

The s t rength a mark re fe rs to " s tendency toiden t i goods sold under the mark as emanating from apar t i cu l a r source." Loi 799 F.2d a t 873 ( in terna lquotat and c i t a t ions omi t ted) . The concept of s t rength8 Class 3 includes: "Bleaching prepara t ions and other substances fo rlaundry use; c leaning, pol ish ing , scouring and abrasive prepara t ions; soaps;perfumery, essent i a l o i l s , cosmetics, ha i r lo t ions ; den t i f r i ce s . " 37 C.F.R. 6.l.9 The Trademark Tria l and Appeal Board also noted t ha t the appare ll i t iga t ion addressed the Double Horsemen with and without "USPA" beneath itfo r goods in In ternat ional Classes 14, 18, 25, and 28 ( respect ively , preciousmeta ls /s tones ; l ea the r an d bags; clo th ing , footwear, headgear; games andsport a r t i c l e s , see 37 C.F.R. 6.1) whereas the i ssue before i t , as here,involves the use of the Double Horsemen with "U. S. Polo Ass' n" above and"1890" below fo r goods in Class 3. (PRL Ex . 110.)10 The use of the word "POLO" might addi t ional ly produce less confusion inthe apparel market, due to the grea ter use of a t t i r e to s ignal a f f i l i a t i onwith a sports team or associa t ion than the use of fragrances, and possib ledi f ferences in consumers in the two markets . In some ins tances , the wordmark "POLO" and PRL's Polo Player Logo might also be considered morearb i t ra ry with respect to fragrances than with respect to apparel , gIVIngr i se to grea te r d i s t inc t iveness and s t rength in the PRL Par t i e s ' mark in th i scontext .

20


22/61

encompasses both " inherent dis t inc t iveness" and "acquireddis t inc t iveness . " See Brennan 's , 360 F.3d a t 130-31; Virgin

ses , 335 F.3d a t 147-49.

By both measures, the PRL Par t i e s ' Polo PI Logoand POLO marks are extremely s t rong. PRL has reg is te red federa lt rademarks fo r the Polo Player Logo, alone o r in combinationwith words, names, symbols or devices, fo r f ragrances andre la ted products , inc luding, among others , U.S. Reg. Nos.1,212,060; 1,327,818; 2,922,574; 3,076,806; and 3 , 0 95 , 176 .Therefore, t he i r marks are presumed to dis t inc t ive . LoisSportswear, 799 F.2d a t 871. As discussed above, both the PRLPolo Player Logo and "POLO" word mark are a rb i t r a ry with regardto f ragrances and so the inherent dis t inc t iveness i s robust .Furthermore, a t t r i a l , the PRL Par t ie s demonstrated t ha t in thel a s t ten years alone, L' Oreal has spent more than one hundredmil l ion dol adver t i s ing PRL men's f ragrances bear ingPolo Player and "POLO" mark in the U.S., with for ty mil l iondol la r s spent adver t i s ing POLO BLUE. (Tr. 39:15 25 (Marino) i PRLEx. 15.) s bols te r s i t s s t rength . See Morningside GroupLtd. v. Morningside Capi ta l Group, L.L.C. , 182 F.3d 133, 139 (2dCir .1999); 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. v. 24 7 Tribeca Fi tness ,447 F. Supp. 2d 266, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

21


23/61

At the same t ime, the awareness in the marketplace ofthese marks i s commercially s t rong , with evidence a t t r i a ldemonstrat ing tha t surveyed men and women ages 18 to 60 repor tbetween 82% and 85% awareness of PRL f ragrances bearing the PoloPlayer Logo and "POLO" brand, ranking it second in brandawareness in the f ie lds of fashion and fragrances . (Tr. 43:7-44;50:1725; PRL Ex. 13 a t 3.) In the l a s t ten years , u.s. r e t a i lsales of men's f ragrances bearing the Polo Player Logo and

"POLO" mark were j u s t over one bi l l ion dol l a rs (Tr. 39:1-10; PRLPar t ies Ex. 15), with one dol l a r out of every $12 spent on men'sf ragrances in the United Sta tes being spent on a PRL f ragrancebearing the Polo ayer Logo and "POLO" mark. (Tr. 42: 5 -11. )

Accordingly, the s t rength of the marks weighs s t ronglyin PRL Par t s ' favor .

2. The Degree o f Between the Two Marks

"Of sa l ien t importance among the Polaroid factors i sthe's l a r i t y of the marks f t e s t , which at tempts to discernwhether the s imi la r i ty of the marks i s l ike ly to cause confusionamong potent customers." Louis Vit ton Mal le t ie r v. Burl ingtonCoat Factory Warehouser 426 F.3d 532, 537 (2d Cir . 2005). Anassessment of the s imi la r i ty of marks examines the s imi la r i ty

22


24/61

between them in appearance sound I and meaning. See Grotr ian lHelfferich Schulz Nachf. v. Ste & Sons 523F.2d 1331 (2d Cir . 1975). When assess ing the s imi la r i ty ofmarks I cour ts "analyze the mark [s I] overa l l impression on aconsumer I consider ing the context in which the marks aredisplayed and the t o t a l i fac tors t ha t could cause confusionamong prospec t ive purchasers . 1I Louis Vit ton l 426 F.3d a t 537.

When the products being compared wil l not be displayeds ide-by-s ide in the marketplace as they wil l not be here (Tr.44:6 9; 44:21-45:3 (Marino) i Tr. 285:4 10; 288:14 289:4(Cummings) ) I the appropr ia te quest ion i s not "whetherdif ferences are eas i ly discernable on simul taneous viewing butwhether they are l ike ly to be memorable enough to d ispe lconfusion on se r i a l viewing. II Louis Vuit ton l 426 F.3d. a t 538.The analys is should consider " the products ' s izes ,typefaces, and package designs and colors lf to determine whetherthe overa l l impression in the re levant market context would leadconsumers to bel ieve t ha t the jun ior user t s product emanatesfrom the same source as products bear ing the senior user ' s mark.Paco Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Perfumes t 234 F.3d 1262 (2dCir . 2000).

23


25/61

The s imi la r i ty between the PRL Par t ies ' and the USPA'smarks i s apparent . Both marks are s imi la r in perspect ive --containing a polo player on horseback, facing s l igh t ly to theviewer 's l e f t , leaning forward with a polo mal le t ra ised. Bothare monochrome logos t ha t are s imi la r in the i r level ofabs t rac t ion. Both are displayed in embossed meta l l ic or glossymater ia l - -wi th PRL's appearing in a number of colors includings i lve r and gold, and USPA's appearing In a l igh t gold. (PRL Exs.16, 22, 23, 25-35, USPA Ex. 52.)

The primary dif ference between the marks is t thePRL's logo contains one player , while USPA's contains two, onewith mallet ra ised and the other with mallet lowered, whichs ign i f i can t ly overlap. In USPA's mark, the front horseman i sdisplayed sol id meta l l ic ink, while the rear horseman i s onlyoutl ined, such that the background packaging shows through.This gives the front -mal let raised--horseman more visualprominence, while the torso of the rear horseman can be said tofade in to the background. Both of USPA' s horsemen share thesame direct ional perspect ive and over lap to a degree t ha t it i sd i f f i cu l t to discern i f there is one horse or two. As counselfor L'Oreal noted a t argument, USPA's Double Horsemen Markstrongly resembles a composite of the PRL's Polo Player Logo

24


26/61

with the logo tha t USPA was enjoined from using in 1984 by JudgeSand. Oral Argument Transcr ip t , 30 :18 -31 : 17 .

Except fo r the PRL Par t i e s ' Big Pony Collec t ion , theproport ionate s ize of the logos as presented on the products i sroughly s imi la r . (PRL Exs. 16, 22, 23 , 25-35 , USPA Ex. 52 . ) TheUSPA's product bears a gold border tha t runs around the edge ofthe f ront panel of the fragrance box, as do some but not a l l of

the PRL Par t i e s ' fragrance products . On both pa r t i e s ' products ,except the PRL Par t i e s ' Red White & Blue and Big Pony l i nes , thelogos are s e t agains t a so l id color background.

The PRL Par t i e s ' fragrances disp lay the word mark"POLO" prominently, except in the Big Pony Line. The USPAPar t i e s ' product bears the "U. S . POLO ASSN." word mark archedabove the Double Horsemen logo and "1890" below. The typefacesare in a s imi la r se r i f font , though severa l of PRL's fragrancesemphasize POLO in l a rger font as d i s t inc t from RALPH LAUREN orthe reverse , while USPA's "U.S. POLO ASSN." i s presented in thea l l the same s ized font .

The USPA Par t i e s mainta in tha t the USPA Marks havebeen jud ic ia l ly recognized as dis s imi la r from PRL's marks,re ly ing on the 1984 Order, the 2006 jury t r i a l before Judge

25


27/61

Daniels , and the Second Circu i t ' s affi rmance of t ha t decis ion .This argument i s unpersuas No pr io r decis ion addressed themarks a t i s sue here in the fragrance market, and the s imil tyof marks "analys is focuses on the par t i cu l a r indust ry wheremarks compete. /I Brennan's , 360 F. 3d 955.

Nor does the addi t ion of "U.S./I "ASSN./I and "1980"defeat a f inding of confusing s imi la r i ty . See North American

Inc. v. North American of US Inc . No. 97Civ. 3448 (RSW) , 1997 WL 316599, a t *6. I t i s general ruletha t one may not "avoid a 1 ihood of confusion by theaddi t ion [to the use r ' s mark] of desc r ip t or otherwisesubordinate matter . " Bellbrook es , Inc. v . Hawthorn-Mellody Farms Dairy, Inc . , 253 F.2d 431, 432-33 (C.C.P.A. 1958)("Vita-Slim" confusingly s imi la r to "Sl im"). USPA's addi t ion ofthe words "U.S" "ASSN." and "1890" does not change emphasison "POLO" as the opera t ive par t the word mark, or thel ike l ihood of confusion when used in conjunct ion with the DoubleHorsemen logo. SeeI nc . , 470 F.2d 689, 692 (2d Cir . 1972) (addi t ion of "by Bradley"did not prevent confusion between "Cross" pens and "LaCross byBradl pens) i 544 F. Supp. 2d 302, 311(S. D. N. Y. 2008) ("Firs t Ladies of Chic" confusingly s l a r to"Chic") i Am. Express Co. v. Am. Express Limousine Serv . , 772 F.

26


28/61

Supp. 729, 733 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (addi t ion of "Limousine Services"to "American Express" mark enhanced ra ther than dispe lconfusion) . Indeed, USPA disclaimed the use of "U. S." t "ASSN."and "1890" in trademark appl ica t ion, fur the r underscoringt ha t ne i the r can properly be regarded as the pr inc ipa l ordominant par t of the i r mark. See Application Ser ia l Nos.77/738,105 and 77/760,071.

Considering the to ta l i ty of fac tors t ha t could causeconfusion, the dif ferences between the par t i es ' marks areunlikely to be memorable enough to dispe l confusion. Thes imi la r i ty of the marks subs tan t i a l ly increases the l ikel ihoodof confusion between the USPA Par t ies ' and PRL Par t i es 'products .

3. The Proximity o f the Products

This fac tor "concerns whether and to what extent thetwo products compete with each other ." Cadbury Beverages Inc. v.Cott 73 F.3d 474, 480 (2d. 1996) . In assessing the-----" '-.,proximity of the par t s ' products , courts "look to the natureof the products themselves and the s t ruc ture of the relevantmarket. Among the cons iderat ions germane to the s t ructure ofthe market are the c la ss of customers to whom goods are

27


29/61

sold, the manner in which the products are adver t i sed , and thechannels through which the goods are so ld . II rd . (c i t a t ions andin te rna l quotat ions omit ted) . "[T]he the secondary use r l sgoods are to those the consumer has seen marketed under thepr ior user ' s brand, the more l ike ly the consumer wil lmistakenly assume a common source." ' 3 3 5 F. 3 da t 150 (c i t Cadbury Beverages, 73 F.3d a t 480-81) .

Both pa r t i e s ' products are men's The USPAPar t ies urge t ha t they and the PRL Par t are not incompet i t ive proximity due to product pric ing d i t , actua land in tended s of t rade , and diverse c l i en t e l e .Speci f ica l ly , the USPA Par t ie s contend t ha t i r fragranceproducts wil l sold primari ly in m id- t ie r s tores such asSears , Kohl 's , and J .C. Penney and a t a po in t ofapproximately $25, while USPA argues t ha t PRL f s e l l o naverage fo r between $50 and $70 and fo r the most in high-end s tores such as Bloomingdales and Saks.

However, test imony of Lesl ie Marino, L' , sGeneral Manager, Des Fragrance Division, es tabl ished tha tf ragrances displaying PRL Par t i es ' Polo Player Logo and POLOmark are sold in department s tores as wel l as spec ia l ty s tores ,

28


30/61

cosmetic s tores , and over the i n te rne t . II (Tr. 44:6 45:1; 46:1724. ) David Cummings, CEO of Proper t ies , t e s t i f t ha t the mid-t i e r s tores where USPA in t to se l l i t s f ragrance so s e l lover the I n t e r ne t . (Tr. 209:22-210:2; 285:22-25 .) ' Accordingly,the pa r t i e s may be d i rec t compet i t ion . Mr. Cummingsacknowledged the l i cense agreement between the USPA Par t i e sand t h e i r l i censee does not res c t the channels ofd i s t r i bu t i on of i t s fragrance product , and agreed t ha ti s nothing to preven t d i s t r i bu t i on the USPA Par t i e s 'f ragrance in the same channels used by the PRL Par t ies . (Tr.285:4-10. )

While USPA contends it wil l se l l i t s f ragrances a tlower pr ice-po s than those PRL, th i s di f ference i s not sovas t as to place a I competi t dis tance between thecompanies ' produc ts . USPA's re l iance on Louis Vitton Malle t ie rv . Burl Coat Warehouse No. 04-civ- ,2644 (RMB) , 2006 WL 1424381, a t *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) , i sunavai l ing , as t ha t cour t found adequate di f ference betweendefendant ' s handbags which d fo r $29.98, and p la in t i f f ' s ,which so ld for $360 to $3,950. Nor i s Estee Lauder Inc . v. The

Inc . , 108 F. Supp. 1503 (2d Cir . 1997) of help to USPA.- - " ' - ' - - - - - - -

Other PRL Par t ies ' are sold in mid- t ie r s tore s such asKohl 's an d J .e . Penney. (Tr. 44:21-45:3.)

29

I I


31/61

Estee Lauder Court found no suppor t fo r 1 ihood ofconfusion where produc ts were d in "mutual ly excl u s i ve types

s tores" and p l a i n t i f f ' s produc ts were pr iced more than 10 to20 t imes more per ounce, id . a t 1511-12, ne i the r of which i s thecase here .

In cons idera t ion of f ac to rs , the Court f inds theproduc ts to be compet i t ive ly proximate . "Moreover,

compet i t ive proximi ty must be measured with re fe rence to thef i r s t tw o Polaroid f ac to rs , " Mobil O il Corp. v. PegasusPetroleum . , 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir . 1987) . The s ingu la rs t rength PRL's marks "demands t ha t [they] be given broadpro tec t ion aga ins t in f r inge rs , " i d . , and the grea t s imil tybetween two marks fu r the r the l ike l ihood t ha t aconsumer wi l l confuse USPA with PRL.

4. The Likel ihood that the PRL Part ies wi l l Bridge the Gap

This f ac to r concerns the 1 ihood t h a t senior usert ha t i s not d i r e c t compet i t ion wi th a j un io r user a t the t imea s u i t i s brought wi l l l a t e r expand the scope of i t s business soas to en te r jun io r use r ' s market . See Arrow Fas tener Co. v.Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384, 397 (2d r . 1995). Because thepa r t i e s in t h i s case are a l ready competi t ly proximate , there

30


32/61

i s no gap to bridge and so th i s fac tor i s i r re levant . SeeSarbucks Corp. v. Wolfe 's Borough Coffee, Inc . , 588 F.3d 97 (2dCir . 2009) (" \bridging the gap' fac tor i s i r re levantwhere, as here, the two products are in d i rec t ompet i t ion witheach other ." ) i Sta r Indus. v. Bacardi & Co., 412 F.3d 373, 387(2d Cir . 2005) (holding tha t "[b] ecause the products arealready in compet i t ive proximity , there i s rea l ly no gap tobridge, and th i s fac tor i s i r re levant to the Polaroidanalysis") .

S. Actual Confusion

" I t i s black l e t t e r law tha t actua l confusion need notbe shown to preva i l under the Lanham Act, s ince actua l confusioni s very d i f f i cu l t to prove and the Act requi res only al ikel ihood of confusion as to source." Lois swear, 799 F.2da t 875. See also Harold F. Inc . , 281 F.2d 755, 761 (2dCir . 1960) i _N_e_w ___Y_o_r__k__________h_a__o_n, 704 F. Supp. 2d 305(S.D.N.Y. 2010) i Pfizer Inc. v . Sachs, 652 F. Supp. 2d 512, 523(S.D.N.Y. 2009). This i s par t i cu l a r l y t rue when an in f r ing ingproduct has been on the market fo r only a shor t t ime -or, ashere, no t ime a t a l l . 12 See ________ __ 704 F. Supp.

12 Sa les o f th e USPA's p r o d u c t t h r o u g h USPA's retail o u t l e t s were deminimis i n d u ra t i o n and scope . (Tr . 221:20 222:7 ; Tr . 278 :10-13 . )

31


33/61

2d a t 318; Pf ize r , 652 F. Supp. 2d a t 523 ("The absence of proofof ac tua l confusion i s not f a t a l to a f inding of l ike l ihood [ofconfusion] , par t i cu la r ly where, as here, the jun ior mark hasbeen in the marketplace for a r e l a t i ve ly shor t per iod of t ime.")(quotat ion marks omitted) .

The USPA Par t ie s argue t ha t the PRL Par t ie s profferedno evidence of actua l confusion in the appare l indus t ry and t ha tthe pa r t i e s ' co-exis tence in the apparel indus t ry weighs agains ta showing of a l ike l ihood of confusion with regard tof ragrances. This argument i s unconvincing fo r two reasons.Fi r s t , insuf f i c ien t evidence regarding whether o r not actua lconfusion exi s t s in the apparel indus t ry was presented a t t r i a lfo r the Court to adequately weigh i t s po ten t i a l a f f ec t . Second,there has been no co exis tence of f ragrances without confusion -a f ac t , which i f t rue , would suppor t USPA's cla im. Lack ofconfusion as to apparel mayo r may not be ind ica t ive of lack ofconfusion as to f ragrances.

Consumer surveys can provide another form of evidenceof the l ike l ihood of confusion. See . ,----- ' '----='-- Me _ _I__n_c,,--._v_.

i t an Nat ' l Bank, 388 F. Supp. 2d 223, 23 2 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("a survey as to the poten t ia l consumer confusion may beweighed when considering the l ike l ihood of confusion") (c i t ing

32


34/61

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 259(2d Cir. 1987 ) ) i Jordache Enterpr ises Inc. v. Levi Strauss &Co., 841 F. Supp. 506 1 518 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Evidence of actua lconfusion consis ts of (1) anecdotal evidence of confusedconsumers in the marketplacei and (2 ) consumer surveyevidence")

Here, the par t ies each conducted surveys . L 'Orealengaged George Mantis, who conducted two surveys . Mant is /sf i r s t survey was a nat ional mall in te rcep t conducted in each ofthe nine Census d i s t r i c t s with 324 ind iv iduals who had a s ta tedin tent ion to purchase a men/s fragrance product in the next s ixmonths. Mantis f i r s t survey used a rep l i ca of the USPA

lPar t ies fragrance as shown in Exhibi t B of the USPA/sdeclara tory judgment complaint . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 150-51.) Thecontro l group was shown a Mustang Blue cologne package andproduct . Id . a t 152-53. That cologne comes in meta l l ic blue boxand displays a horse in prof i le se t agains t a black and s i l ve rgrate with "MUSTANG BLUE" below. Survey noise was est imatedbased on the proport ion of survey respondents who associa ted thecontro l sample with PRL (PRL Ex. 9 a t 4), and subt rac ted fromthe reported confusion leve ls to produce a "net confusion"f igure.

l

33


35/61

Mant i s ' second survey fol lowed th e same methodology,but wi th tw o d i f f e r e n t t e s t samples , due to USPA's s t i p u l a t e dchange in the co lo r to be used fo r t h e i r packaging . The surveyinvolved over 500 i nd iv idua l s drawn from th e nine censusd i s t r i c t s . (Tr. 86 : 15 -1 7) . Both t e s t samples in th e secondMant is ' survey disp layed th e Double Horsemen Trademark, onebear ing "U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and \\1890" below (PRL Ex.10 Ex. E) i and th e o t h e r bear ing \\USPA" below (PRL Ex. 10 Ex.

E) . Both t e s t marks appeared on beige packaging. The sameMustang Blue cologne and packaging was used as the c o n t r o l . (PRLEx . 10 Ex. G.)

Mant is ' f i r s t survey found 32.4% gross confusion and4.6% confus ion in th e con t ro l group, r e s u l t i n g i n a ne tconfusion l eve l o f 27.8%. This rep re sen t s the con t ro l l edpor t ion of those who b e l i ev ed th e f ragrance bear ing th e DoubleHorsemen Mark wi th \\U. S. POLO ASSN." arched above and \\1890"below on blue packaging was p u t o u t by, connec ted to , o rau th o r i zed by Polo Ralph Lauren . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 2 .)

The second Mant is survey found gross confusion l e v e l so f 25.9% fo r th e use of USPA's Double Horsemen Trademarkcombinat ion wi th \\U.S. POLO ASSN." above and \\1890" below, on abe ige background, as wel l a s 21.2% gross confus ion fo r the use

34


36/61

of the Double Horsemen in combinat ion with "US PA'l below I on abe ige background. (PRL Ex. 10 a t 6 .) Mantis found 3.4% confusionfo r th e Mustang con t ro l product . This eq u a t e s to 22.5% n e tconfusion fo r th e "U . S. POLO ASSN. II t e s t product and 17.8% n e tconfusion fo r the "US PA'l t e s t product .

The USPA P a r t i e s presen ted a survey conducted by Dr.Myron Hel fgo t t l which involved in te rv iews with 1 / 000 re sponden t sin shopping mal ls ten geographica l ly d i spe rsed metropol i tana reas . (USPA Ex. 48.) The sample was screened to cons i s t ofmen and women between th e ages of 18 and 35 who repor ted t h a tthey a re l i k e l y to purchase a men l s f ragrance product cos t i ng$20 to $30 in th e nex t s ix months. In each in te rv iew lrespondents were shown a bo t t l e and ca r ton fo r a men'sf ragrance , which they were t o ld s e l l s fo r $24.99.

The Hel fgo t t survey t e s t ed t h ree f ragrance packagesa l l se t on beige packaging with gold l e t t e r i n g : (1 ) th e DoubleHorsemen logo with "USPA II beneath I (2) th e Double Horsemen logowith "U.S. POLO ASSN. I I beneath l and (3) the Double Horsemen logowith "U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and "1890 11 below. Hel fgo t tused two c o n t r o l s . One spor ted i d e n t i c a l packaging and gold inkto the t h ree t e s t ed f ragrances , excep t i n s t ead of th e DoubleHorsemen logol th e cont ro l fea tured USPA's horsehead mark l which

35


37/61

consis t s of a pic ture of a horse ' s head in an oval shape formedby a s tyl ized horseshoe, with "U.S. POLO" arched above. Thesecond contro l is a fragrance which presents a gold embossedpolo player as t r ide a horse, facing di rec t ly to the viewer 'sr ight , with "Beverly Hills" arched above and "Polo Club" below.The logo and word mark are in gold and se t in a red box. Thepackaging i s black.

The Helfgott survey found 28% gross confusion with theDouble Horsemen logo with "USPA" beneath; 27% gross confusionwith the Double Horsemen logo with "U.S. POLO ASSN." beneath;and 25.5% gross confusion with the Double Horsemen logo with"U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and "1890" below. (USPA Ex. 48a t 2.) The survey found 28.5% confusion with the USPA'shorsehead mark cont ro l and 32% confusion with the Beverly Hil l sPolo Club control . Id . The Helfgott survey concluded t ha tbecause confusion leve ls fo r the t e s t products were s imi la r toor lower than confusion leve ls provoked by the cont ro ls , netconfusion was zero fo r a l l t e s t products and "the source of themeasured t e s t product confusion was something other thanpresence of the double horsemen i l l u s t ra t i on . " (USPA Ex. 48 a t13. ) Because the leve l of confusion associa ted with the threet e s t products did not exceed the leve l of confusion caused by

36


38/61

the Beverly Hil ls Polo Club control , Helfgot t concluded that"[ t ]here i s not res idual confusion." Id . a t 14.)

The ie s dispute the methodology of each other ' ssurveys. i f i ca l ly , the PRL Part ies a s se r t that Dr.Helfgot t ' s f survey quest ion, which s t a t ed tha t respondentswere being shown a f ragrance t ha t cos ts $24.99 and l imi tedrespondents to what "organization" put out the product , id . a t8 , l ike ly fected the way that those surveyed responded. Inaddi t ion, the PRL Par t ie s contend t ha t Hel fgo t t ' s screeningmethod, which l imi ted respondents to those with the in t en t topurchase a f ragrance in the $20 to $30 ce range,preconditioned respondents by referencing pr ice . Dr. Hel fgot tacknowledged a t t r i a l t ha t s t ipping off respondents to apr ice could have responses (Tr. 401:17-402:7(Helfgot t , and t ha t the proper sample in a forward lookingconfusion survey consis ts those l ike ly to purchase in theproduct category, not only prospect ive purchasers of onecompany's products . (Tr. 405:1-19 (Helfgot t ) . ) The Helfgotts tudy 's screening for those in tending to purchase a men'sfrangrance in the $20-$30 rangei the inc lus ion of cos tHel t' s f i r s t quest ioni and t ha t the s tudy 's f i r s t quest ionlimi survey responses to "organizat ion", a l l precondit ionedhis survey respondents.

37


39/61

The PRL P a r t i e s a lso c r i t i c i z e th e Hel fgo t t s tudy onth e bas i s t h a t B i l l B a r t l e t t of Suburban was r e spons i b l e fo rreading the ques t i onna i r e s and decid ing how each of th eresponses on those ques t i onna i r e s shou ld be coded i.e., confusedo r not confused (Tr. 375 :14 -16 i 433:4-7 (H e l f g o t t , and Dr.Hel fgo t t conceded t h a t he pe rsona l ly d id not review a l l th e

i onna i re s . (Tr. 432:23 433:3 fgot t ) .) However, Dr.Hel fgo t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d id scuss how to code c e r t a i n ofth e survey responses Mr. B a r t l e t t deemed prob lemat ic and read tohim over t e lephone , and th e Court c re d i t s t h a t tes t imony.(Tr. 406:25-407:6 , 407:16 22 (Hel fgot t ) . ) More prob l ema t i ca l l y ,th e repor t t h a t Dr. Hel fgo t t prepared d id not con ta i n a"verbat im" sec t ion t h a t s e t o u t th e responses o f in te rv iewrespondents recorded on the ques t i onna i r e s by th e i n te rv i ewer sduring the survey in te rv iews, such t h a t the Cour t i s n ot ab le toi ndependen t ly determine whether th e responses were prope r l yc l a s s i f i e d .

The most s i g n i f i c a n t e r ro r in the He l fgo t t s tudy wasits choice o f con t ro l v a r i a b l e s . Wi thou t a proper con t ro l ,the re i s no benchmark fo r determining whether a l i ke l ihood o fconfus ion es t i ma te i s s i g n i f i c a n t o r merely r e f l e c t s f laws inth e survey methodology. "In des ign ing a con t ro l group s tudy I

exper t should se l e c t a s t imulus fo r th e con t ro l group t h a t

38


40/61

shares as many charac te r i s t ics with the cont ro l group asposs ible , with the key except ion of the charac te r i s t ic whoseinf luence i s being assessed." J . Jacoby, "Experimental Designand the Select ion of Controls in Trademark and DeceptiveAdvert is ing Surveys," 92 Trademark Rep. 890, 920 (2002) (quotingthe Federal Judic ia l Center ' s Reference Manual on Scien t i f i cEvidence) Here, Helfgot t ' s cont ro ls were improper in t ha t theyincluded the very elements being assessed, 13 namely, the wordmark "POLO" and, in the case of the Beverly Hil l s Polo Clubcont ro l , also a mounted polo player image.

The high levels of confusion e l i c i t ed by Dr.Helfgot t ' s cont ro ls throw the s tudy ' s use in to fur the r doubt.(USPA Par t ies Ex. 48 (28.5% for Horse Head, 32% fo r BeverlyHil ls Polo Club).) See JacobYI 92 Trademark Reporter 890 1 931-32 ("[I]n the best of a l l possible worlds, it would not bedesi rab le for a control to yie ld confusion es t imates t ha texceeded 10%. I f did, the cont ro l i t s e l f would begin to reachan actionable leve l of confusion and i t s u t i l i t y as a contro lthereby compromised."). Dr. Helfgott was not in subs tant ia ldisagreement. He t e s t i f i ed t ha t the Beverly Hil ls Polo Clubsample rea l ly did not ac t as a control . (Tr. 436:21 437:7

13 (See L ' O r e a l ' s coun terc la ims 36, 46, 47; PRL P a r t i e s Ex. 14; DocketEntry 52 a t 2, 10.)

39


41/61

14

fgott) .14) The USPA Par t ie s argue tha t surveys using controlstha t generate confusion leve ls in excess of 20% have been usedand accepted. However, those cont s were used surveysdi f fe ren t from those here , in which survey respondents wereshown both the p la in t i f f ' s product and the defendant 's productbearing the mark. See Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v . Victor ia ' s Secret

618 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir .2010) (s ide-by-side product comparison); Edison Bros. Stores ,

Inc. v . Cosmair, Inc . , 651 F. Supp. 1547, 1559 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)(same) . Studies using tha t methodology genera l ly produce higherleve ls confusion. See Phyl l i s J . Welter , TRADEMARK SURVEYS 6.01[4] ease #6, June 1999). The resu l t s of those s tudiestherefore cannot be properly compared with s tudies here.

Dr. Helfgot t ' s survey i s fur the r l imi ted in i t su t i l i t y because it permit ted respondents to "correc t forconfusion" by reading the l abe l back to the in terv iewer , and

In re levant par t the t r ansc r i p t reads:Q. And in your report you referred to t ha t cont ro l as a benchmark,i s n ' t t ha t r ight?A. Yes.Q. You can look a t it .A. Yes, yes, yes.Q. But you don ' t - - but the repor t doesn ' t descr ibe what the benchmarkwas, r ight? I mean, what was the measurement t ha t const i tu ted thebenchmark?A. I t was a l ike l ihood of confusion response.Q . So you would agree with me t ha t it wasn ' t measuring what surveyexperts cal led background noise?A. No, . I agree with t ha t .(Tr. 436:21 437:7 (Helfgot t ) . )

40


42/61

allowed respondents to view the t e s t samples for 8 10 minuteswhile being quest ioned. (Tr. 387:23 388:1; 388:2-20; 390:16391:12 (Helfgott) . ) In sum, due to i t s s ign i f i can t drawbacks,the Court gives the Helfgott study no weight.

With regard to the Mantis surveys, the USPA Par t iescontend t ha t Mantis ' f i r s t survey question was leading. Thatquest ion asked "who or what individual , company or organization

makes or puts out th i s product?" a f t e r respondents were shownUSPA's packaging and product . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 5.) That form andsequence of questioning has become standard methodology intrademark infringement surveys, however, following themethodology used in ______E_____ 531F.2d 366 (7th r . 1976) ce r t . denied, 429 U.S. 830 (1976)(approving what i s now known as the "Ever-Readyfl tes t ) .USPA's rel iance on Smith v. Wal Mart Stores Inc. 537 F. Supp.2d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2008), i s misplac There, the surveyquest ion required the respondent to answer "which company ors tore do you think puts out th i s shi r t?" despi te the fact t ha tthe defendant was an ind iv idual . Omitting a possib le choice( there, " individual ff ), where it was not only re levant but also

was the choice being t e s ted , was found to be inappropriate .Here, Mantis included, not omit t a l l reasonable choices, andallowed the respondent to provide his /her genuine answer. The

41


43/61

f i r s t Mantis survey quest ion therefore was not mis leading. Thisf inding i s confirmed by the a t ive ly s imi la r l eve ls of grossconfusion found by both Mantis and Helfgot t ' s surveys .

The USPA Par t i es ' c r i t i c i sms tha t the Mantis s tudy didnot screen for p r i ce are meri t less . USPA was not marketing theproduct a t the t ime and i t s price was unknown. (Tr. 89: 7 15(Mantis) . ) As Dr. Helfgot t pr inc ipa l ly acknowledged (Tr. 405:125 (Helfgot t )) , it was proper fo r Mantis not to screen fo rpr ice .

The USPA Par t ie s addi t iona l ly dispute theappropr iateness the Mantis s tudy ' s cont ro l , arguing t ha t theMustang mark was too famous to ac t as a proper cont ro l .However, the Mantis contro l repl ica ted market condi t ions in sofa r as the Mustang product i s current ly on the market, did notconta in any of the elements being assessed, provided the surveyrespondent the opportunity for guessing, contained a symbol of ahorse and, with respect to the f i r s t survey, was the same coloras the t e s t sample. While the Mantis survey ' s contro l couldhave perhaps shared more fea tures with the t e s t product in termsof the shape and mater ia l of the fragrance box, the Court givessome weight to i t s resu l t s .

42


44/61

The confusion leve ls ascer ta ined by the Mantis surveyshave been accepted as indica t ive of l ike l ihood of confusion byother courts in th i s Circui t . See Kraft General Foods, Inc, v.Old English, Inc . , 831 F. Supp. 123, 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)(discussing a mall in te rcept survey t ha t indica ted net confusionof twenty-six percent (26% ) and f inding the "extremedemonstrat ion of confusion evidenced by the survey demonstratesKraf t ' s l ike l ihood of success on the merits , as even asubstant ia l ly l e sse r showing of confusion would support Kraf t ' smotion fo r a prel iminary in junc t ion") . See also Empressa CubanaDel Tabaco v. 70 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1650 (S.D.N.Y.2004), rev 'd on other 399 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. 2005)(confusion ra te of 15% 21% indica tes a l ikel ihood ofconfusion) ; Energybrands, Inc. v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc . ,No. 02 CIV. 3227 (JSR), 2002 WL 826814 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2002)(17% net confusion warranted grant of prel iminary injunction) ;Volkswagen Ast iengesel l schaf t v. Uptown Motors, No. 91 Civ. 3447(DLC) 1995 WL 605605 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1995) (two surveysshowing 17.2% and 15.8% net confusion j us t i f i ed grant ofinjunction) .

The Mantis surveys are appropria te ly suggest ive ofactual confusion. Accordingly, th i s fac tor weighs in the PRLPar t i es ' favor.

43


45/61

6. USPA's Intent in Adoptinq I ts Mark

"Courts and commentators who have considered thequest ion equate a lack of good fa i th with the subsequent use r ' sin tent to t rade on the good wi l l of the t rademark holder bycrea t ing confusion as to source o r sponsorship." EMI CataloguePartnership v. Hil l , Holl iday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc . , 228F.3d 56, 67 (2d Cir . 2000) (c i t a t ions omitted) (noting inquiryi s "whether defendant in adopting i t s mark in tended tocapi ta l ize on p la in t i f f ' s good wil l" ) . "Bad fa i th genera l lyre fers to an at tempt by a jun ior user of a mark to explo i t thegood wil l and reputa t ion of a senior user by adopting the markwith the in ten t to sow confusion between the two companies'products ." Starbucks v. Wolfe ' s Coffee Inc . , 588 F.3d97 (2d Cir . 2009) (quoting Sta r Indust es, 412 F.3d a t 388).Under th i s fac tor , "the 'only re levant in ten t i s in ten t toconfuse. '" Id . (quoting 4 McCarthy on Trademarks 23.113).

Bad fa i th can be found where pr i o r knowledge of thesenior user ' s mark or t rade dress i s accompanied by s imi l a r i t i e sso strong tha t it seems pla in t ha t de l ibe ra te copying hasoccurred. Paddington Corp. v. Att ik i Imps. & Dis t r ib . , Inc . , 996F.2d 577, 587 (2d Cir . 1993) ("In ten t ional copying, of course,does not require iden t ica l copying. Where the copier references

44


46/61

the pr l o r dress in es tab l i sh ing her design with apparent aimof securing the customers of the o ther on confusion,i n t en t iona l copying may be found.") .

Here, USPA was undoubtedly ly fami l ia r with the PRLPar t ie s ' marks and t rade dress , extens i ve his tory oft rademark l i t i g a t i o n between the USPA's in ten t tocapi ta l ize on PRL's reputa t ion and goodwil l can be infer red from

i t s decis ion to adopt a mark i s so s t r ik ing ly s imi la r tothe PRL Polo Player Logo and t ly employ the same co lo r ands imi la r t rade dress to PRL's most popularfragrance l ine sold under o Player Logo. (Tr. 55: 10 -21(Marino) i PRL Par t ie s Exs. 16 and 27.) The explanat ion given byUSPA's Pres ident , Mr. Cummings, to expla in i t s i n i t i a l adoptionof s imi la r blue t rade s i s not persuas ive . Cummingst e s t i f i ed tha t blue packaging was used because USPA had adoptedblue t rade dress , on the inseam and waistband labe ls andhangtags a r t i c in i t s appare l l ines , and USPAbelieved t ha t using blue packaging would be t t e r enable consumersto iden t i fy product as USPA's. (Tr. 215:8-218:2 (Cummings)).

Notably, USPA could have avoided t h i s s i tua t ione n t i by choosing a logo tha t depic ts a polo in aposi t ion and from a perspect ive t ha t d if from Polo

45


47/61

Player Logo with a more c lear ly d i s t inc t form of packaging i n i t i a l l y u t i l i z i ng a di f fe ren t color , non meta l l ic ink, andwith no th in matching border edging). But it chose not to doso. That the USPA Par t ie s and the i r l icensee did not have anyexper t i se in purveying f ragrances or develop a s t ra t eg icbusiness plan, a budget, or suf f i c ien t funding for adver t i s ing iand tha t they worked with a l icensee which would not disc losei t s name because i t was concerned, as USPA was aware, tha t it

might be dragged in to a lawsuit with Ralph Laruen and had beenunable to f ind sublicensees due to t h rea t of a trademark act ion(Tr. 270: 22-277: 10 (Cummings)) fur ther indica tes tha t the USPAPar t ie s intended to capi t a l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and goodwill-

ins tead of bui lding the i r own. Therefore, the Court f inds tha tUSPA adopted i t s mark with the in ten t ion of capi t a l i z ing onPRL's reputa t ion and goodwill . ls

7. The Quality o f USPA's product

Under the seventh Polaroid fac tor ca l l s fo r anexamination of the qual i ty of USPA's f ragrance product. Th e15 This i s d i s t inc t from a finding tha t USPA knowingly acted unlawfully a tl eas t with regard to USPA's adoption of the Double Horsemen mark onf ragrances . Whether or not the USPA par t i es acted in re l iance on the 1984Order and 2006 apparel l i t i ga t i on in adopting the Double Horsemen with regardto f ragrances , th i s i s not in tension with the Court ' s f inding tha t USPAadopted the mark, and fo r fragrances i n i t i a l l y with t rade dress t ha t i ss t r ik ingly s imilar to the POLO BLUE l ine , with the in ten t ion of cap i ta l iz ingon PRL's reputa t ion , goodwil l , and any confusion between i t s and the PRL'sproduct.

46
http:///reader/full/goodwill.lshttp:///reader/full/goodwill.ls


48/61

Cour t makes no f indings on t h i s i s sue , as n e i t h e r USPA nor th ePRL P a r t i e s pro f f e red evidence in t h i s r eg a rd , and the USPAPa r t i e s ' produc t was pu l l ed from th e market nea r ly immedia te lya f t e r being in t roduced .

However, it i s th e l o s s of con t ro l over q u a l i t y t h a ti s th e r e a l gravamen of t h i s f a c t o r , Accordingly , "a sen io ru s e r may sue t o p r o t e c t h i s repu ta t ion even where th ei n f r i n g e r f s goods a re o f top qua l i t Y , 1/ _M_o_b_l_'l__O_i_l_ _C_o_r",-p_,_ _v_,

Petroleum . , 818 F.2d 254, 259, 260 (2d Cir . 1987) .A sen io r use r , " is no t requi red to pu t its repu ta t ion in [aj u n i o r users ] hands, no mat te r how capab le those hands may be . 1/Id . {quoting , 165 N.Y.S.2d 825,826 (Sup. C t. 1957) ) . At th e same t ime, cour t s in t h i s C i r c u i thave found t h a t s i mi l a r i t y in th e q u a l i t y th e products mayc r e a t e an even g r e a t e r l i ke l ihood of confus ion as to sourceinasmuch as consumers may expec t products o f s im i l a r q u a l i t y toemanate from the same source . See Tommy Hi l f i g e r

Inc . v . Nature Labs LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410, 420(S.D.N.Y. 2002) (d i scuss ing the two ways which q u a l i t y of thej u n i o r u s e r ' s produc t has been analyzed) i Paco Spor t , Ltd. v .Paco Rabanne Parfums, 86 F. Supp. 2d 305, 325-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(same) i Jordache Inc . 841 F. Supp. 506 1 520(S. D. N. Y . 1993) {s t a t ing t h a t because p a r t i e s both manufacture

47


49/61

qual i ty apparel , the senior user need not be concerned aboutreputa t ional harm due to tarnishment , but t ha t the equivalentqual i ty of the products "supports the inference t ha t theyemanate from the same source") .

Thus, while th i s fac tor i s neutra l , e i the r reasoningmight addi t iona l ly support the PRL Par t ies ' claims.

8. The Sophis t icat ion o f Fragrance Buyers

"Generally, the more sophis t ica ted and careful theaverage consumer of a product is , the less l ike ly it i s thats imi lar i t i es in trademarks wil l resu l t in confusionconcerning the source or sponsorship of the product . II Bris tol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc . , 973 F.2d 1033, 1046 (2dCir. 1992). Although it may be t ha t purchasers of expensivefragrances are typical ly found to be somewhat sophis t ica tedconsumers, see e . . , Nina Ricci , S.A.R.L. v. Gemcraft Ltd . , 612F. Supp. 1520, 1529 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), there i s nothing in therecord to indica te that purchasers of low- to mid-pricedfragrances a t low- to mid-range r e t a i l e r s are comparablysophis t ica ted. The USPA Part ies s ta te that they wil l s e l l the i rapparel and other products a t Sears and s imi lar mid-t ie rmerchandisers a t pr ice points below those of the PRL Par t i es .

48


50/61

In so fa r as t h i s w i l l be the case , prospec t ive purchasers ofth e USPA Pa r t i e s ' products may nonethe less be confused in tobe l ieving t h a t USPA's product i s an au thor i zed "down market IIvers ion o r extens ion of th e PRL Pa r t i e s ' f ragrance produc ts , o rt h a t USPA and the PRL P a r t i e s are otherwise a f f i l i a t e d . SeeNikon Inc . v . Ikon Corp. , 987 F. 2d 91, 95 (aff i rming d i s t r i c tc our t ' s f inding t h a t consumers o f lower-end produc ts were l e s ssoph is t i ca ted and "could be confused about an a f f i l i a t i o nbetween the produc ts . II)

"Where a second-comer a c t s in bad f a i t h andi n t en t iona l ly cop ies a t rademark o r t r ade d re s s , a presumpt iona r i s e s t h a t th e cop i e r has succeeded in caus ing confusion. IIPaddington Corp. , 996 F.2d a t 586 87 (c i t ing _ _ _ _ _ _ __n_c_.v . American Broadcas t ing Cos . , 720 F.2d 231, 246 47 (2 dCir.1983) i Per f ec t F i t Indus t r i e s , Inc . v . Acme Qui l t ing Co. ,In c . , 618 F.2d 950, 954 (2 d Ci r . 1980) i Bris to l -Myers Squibb,973 F.2d a t 1044-45; Charles of the Ri tz Group Ltd. v. Qual i tyKing Dis t r ibu to r s , In c . , 83 2 F.2d 1317, 1322 (2d Cir . 1987)) .

This f ac to r t he re fo re cu t s in th e PRL Pa r t i e s ' favor .

Weighing th e Factors

49


51/61

Weighing the var ious Polaroid fac tors and based on theevidence presented a t t r i a l the Court f inds tha t USPA/s use of

Double Horsemen Mark along wi th the word mark "U. S . POLOASSN. II in the context of men 1 s f ragrances crea tes a strong

ll ikel ihood of confusion with the PRL Par t ie s products . Themarks are so s imi la r tha t it i s l ike ly tha t consumers would beconfused 1 whether by bel iev ing PRL had author i zed a downmarket product o r by confusing products out

I I . State Law

\\ [T] standards Sect ion 43(a} cla ims theLanham Act and unfa i r compet i t ion cla ims under New York Law arealmost ind is t inguishable . II Tri - Sta r Pic tures Inc. v. Unger 1 14F. Supp. 2d 339 1 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Genesee Brewing124 F.3d a t 149; Bros. - Barnum &Inc. v . B.E. Windows 1 937 F. Supp. 204 , 208 - 0 9 (S.D.N.Y.1996) . only addi t ional element t ha t must be shown toes tab l i sh a claim fo r i r compet i t ion under the common law i sbad f a i th . Gir l Scouts v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ ' g Group,Inc . , 808 F. Supp. 1112, 1131 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)1 af f ' d , 996 F.2d1477 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Under New York law, common law unfa i rcompetit ion claims close ly resemble Lanham Act cla ims exceptinsofar as the s t a t e law claim may requi re an addi t ional element

50

- - - - - - - -_ ._-- - - - - ----_._-------


52/61

of bad fa i th or in ten t II ) ( in terna l quotat ions omitted) i Jeff reyMilstein, Inc. v. Gregor, Lawlor, Roth, Inc . , 58 F.3d 27, 34 35(2d Cir . 1995) (" [T]he essence of unfa i r compet i t ion under NewYork common law is the bad fa i th misappropr iat ion of the laborsand expendi tures of another , l ike ly to cause confusion or todeceive purchasers as to the or ig in of the goods H) .

Since the PRL Par t ies have demonstrated a l ikel ihoodof confusion between the pa r t i e s ' marks under t h e i r Lanham Actclaims and USPA in tended to capi t a l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion andgoodwil l , the PRL Par t ie s preva i l on t h e i r unfa i r compet i t ionclaims as wel l .

Because the PRL Par t ie s have prevai led on t h e i r LanhamAct and unfa i r compet i t ion claims, the Court need not reach thepa r t i e s ' addi t ional s ta te law cla ims in order to i s sue apermanent in junct ion. The scope of the r e l i e f sought- anin junct ion prohib i t ing the USPA Par t ie s from using the "U. S.POLO ASSN.H name in conjunct ion with the Double Horsemen mark inmen's f ragrances-- is iden t ica l regard less of whether the PRLPar t ies would succeed on any of t he i r addi t ional claims.

IV. Per:manent Injunct ive Rel i e f

51


53/61

Tradi t iona l ly , in trademark infringement act ions inth i s Circui t , a par ty seeking a permanent in junc t ion "mustsucceed on the meri ts and show an absence of an adequate remedya t law and i r reparable harm i f the r e l i e f i s not granted ." GayleMartz, Inc. v. Sherpa Pet Group, Inc . , 651 F. Supp. 2d 72, 84 5(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (c i t ing Roach v. Morse, 440 F. 3d 53, 56 (2dCir. 2006). However, the Second Ci rcu i t ' s recent deci s ion inSal inger v. Colt ing, 607 F.3d 68, 74-75, announced in thecontext of a copyright infringement action t ha t th i s standardfo r in junc t ive r e l i e f had been abrogated by Inc. v.MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006). The Second Circui theld that a prel iminary in junct ion should i ssue where thepla in t i f f has shown a l ike l ihood of success on the meri ts 16 andthat : (1) "he i s l ikely to suf fe r i r r epa rab le injury in theabsence of an injunct ion"; (2) "remedies a t law, such asmonetary damages, are inadequate to compensate fo r t ha t in jury" ;(3) the balance of hardships t ips in h is favor; and (4) "the'publ ic in te res t would not be disserved ' by the issuance of aprel iminary in junc t ion." Sal inger v. Col t ing , 607 F.3d 68, 80(2d Cir.2010) (c i t ing eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547

U.S. 388, 391 (2006)).

16 "The s tandard fo r a prel iminary in junct ion i s essen t i a l l y the same asfo r a permanent in junc t ion with the except ion t h a t th e p l a i n t i f f must show al ike l ihood o f success on th e meri ts ra the r than ac tua l success ." ProdCo. v. Vil lage of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 .

52


54/61

Although the holding in Sal inger wa s exp l i c i t l y" l imi ted to pre l iminary in junct ions in the contex t of copyr ightcases ," Id . , 607 F.3d a t 78 n.7, the Court saw no reason why"eBay would not apply wi th equal force to an in junct ion in anytype of case." Id . a t 78 n.7(emphasis in or ig ina l ) . And thepanel noted t ha t "eBay s t rongly ind ica tes t ha t the t r ad i t i ona lprinc ip les of equi ty it employed a re the presumptive s tandardfor in junct ions in any context ." Id . a t 78.

While the Second Circu i t has not ye t spoken on t h i sissue in the context of t rademark infr ingement actions,17Sal inger suggest t ha t these cases should be analyzed under thes tandards fo r in junct ive r e l i e f a r t i cu l a t ed by the Supreme Courtln eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006).This Court agrees wi th o the r cour ts ln th i s Circu i t to haveconsidered Sal inger ' s appl i cab i l i ty to t rademark act ions tha tthere appears to be no princ ip led reason not to adopt the newlyannounced s tandard in the t rademark context . See Pre t ty Girl ,Inc . , 2011 WL 887993, a t *2; New York City Tria th lon LLC v. NYCTria th lon Club, Inc . , 704 F. Supp. 2d 305, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

17 P r i o r t o Sa l i n g e r , t h e r e was a s p l i t among th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s aboutth e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f th e eBay s t an d a rd to t r ademark cas e s . See Gayle Martz ,Inc . v . Sherpa Pe t Group, I n c . , 65 1 F.Supp.2d 7 2 , 8 4 - 8 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(compar ing Microsof t Corp. v . AGA So l u t i o n s , I n c . , 589 F.Supp.2d 195, 20 4(E.D.N.Y. 2008) (app ly ing eBay s t andard in t r ademark ac t i o n ) with P a t s y ' sI t a l i a n R es t au ran t , In c . v . Banas, 575 F.Supp2d 427, 46 4 & n.25 (E.D.N.Y.)(dec l in ing to app ly eBay) ) .

53

------ ____ ------ --------_.__.----
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d


55/61

Moreover, th i s Court recognizes t ha t "\ a maj ordepar ture from the long t r ad i t ion of equi ty prac t ice should notbe l igh t ly impl ied . ' " eBay, 547 U.S. a t 392 (quoting Weinbergerv. Romero-Barcelo, 426 U.S. 305, 320 (1982)). Sal inger stronglysuggested tha t eBay's standard applies in the context of anyin junct ion , so long as Congress does not in tend otherwise. 607F.3d a t 77-78 & n.7 . As in eBay, no Congressional in t en t to thecont ra ry is evident here but ins tead the reverse .547 U.S. a t 391 92. The Lanham Act expressly provides tha tfederal cour ts "have power to grant in junct ions , according tothe pr inc iples of equi ty" in trademark infr ingement and di lut ioncases. 15 U.S.C. 1116 (a) . SimilarlYt the Act express lys t a t es tha t the senior owner of a mark "sha l l be ent i t l ed" to anin junct ion "subjec t to the pr inc iples of equi ty" with respect todi lu t ion claims. 15 U.S.C. 1125 (c) (1) .

Accordingly, the Court concludes tha t the four-factored in junct ion standard ar t i cu la ted in eBay and appl ies to th i s act ion .

A. Likel ihood o f Irreparable Injury

54


56/61

This Circu i t has prev i ous l y recogn ized a presumpt ionof i r r eparab le harm in t rademark in f r ingement ac t i ons . Evenqu i t e r ecen t ly , th e C i r c u i t has held t h a t as long as t he re hasnot been undue delay in br inging a c la im, a " p l a i n t i f f whoe s t a b l i s h e s t h a t an i n f r i n g e r ' s use of i t s t rademark c r e a t e s al i ke l ihood of consumer confusion gene ra l ly i s e n t i t l e d to apresumption o f i r r e p a r a b l e in ju ry . " Weight Watchers lnt'l, Inc .v . Lui g i no ' s , I n c . , 423 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Ci r . 2005) i ZinoDavidof f SA v . CVS . , 571 F.3d, 246 (2d Ci r . 2009) Seea l so , Dunkin ' Donuts Franch i sed Res ts . LLC v . Tim & TabInc . , No. 07-CV-3662 (KAM) (MDG) , 2009 WL 2997382, a t *8(E.D.N.Y. Sept . 15, 2009) ( i r r epa rab le in ju ry " i s au toma t i ca l l ys a t i ied by ac tua l success on the mer i t s as i r r e p a r a b l e harm i ses t ab l i shed by a showing of l i ke l ihood of confus ion ." ) ( in te rna lquo ta t i on and c i t a t i o n omit ted) .

P r i o r to Sa l i nge r , which e l imina ted an analogouspresumption in the co n tex t of copyr igh t c la ims , 18 was s sc l e a r whether eBay 's e l imina t ion o f th e presumpt ion ofi r r eparab le harm appl ied to t rademark in f r ingement ac t ions . Seea lso Chloe v . DesignersImpor ts .com USA, I n c . , No. 07 Civ. 1791(CS) (GAY), 2009 WL 1227927, a t *11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr i l 30 1 2009)

18 "After eBay . cour t s must not s imply presume i r r e p a r a b l e harm.Rather , p l a i n t i f f s mush show t h a t , on the f a c t s o f t h e i r case , th e f a i l u r e toi s sue an i n junc t ion would a c t u a l l y cause i r r e p a r a b l e harm. II Sa l inge r , 60 7F.3d a t 82.

55
http:///reader/full/DesignersImports.comhttp:///reader/full/DesignersImports.com


57/61

( retaining pre-eBay presumption); Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v.Col ibr i Corp.! 692 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (same). Inl igh t of Sal inger ' s c l a r i f i ca t i on tha t "eBay's cent ra l lesson i st ha t , unless Congress intended a 'major depar ture from the longt r ad i t ion of equity prac t i ce , ! a cour t deciding whether to i ssuean injunct ion must not adopt ' ca tegor ica l ! or ' general ! ru le s orpresume that a par ty has met an element of the injunct ionstandard! 11 607 F.3d a t 77-78 & n.7, the presumption ofi r reparable injury in trademark cases i s no longer appropr ia te .See Pre t ty Gir l , 2011 WL 887993, a t *2 & n . 4 i New York CityTriathlon! 704 F. Supp. 2d a t 342 43. Even without thepresumption, however, the PRL Part ies have adequatelydemonstrated i r reparable harm here.

"Ir reparable harm ex is t s in a trademark case when thepar ty seeking the injunct ion shows that it wil l lose contro lover the reputa t ion of i t s trademark because loss ofcontro l over one ' s reputa t ion is ne i the r 'ca lculable norprec ise ly compensable. 11 New York City Tria th lon , 704 F. Supp.2d a t 343 ( inte rna l quotation marks ommitted) (quoting Power

Inc. v. Calcu Gas Inc . , 754 F.2d 91,95 (2d Cir. 1985); Omega Importing Corp. v. Petr i -Kine CameraCo.! 451 F.2d 1190! 1195 (2d Cir. 1971).

56


58/61

Here, absent an in junct ion , given the l ike l ihood ofconfusion between the Polo Player Logo and USPA's DoubleHorsemen Trademark, the reputa t ion and goodwill cul t ivated byPRL's would be out of i t s hands. The USPA Par t ies ' product mayor may not be of high qual i ty , sold with suf f ic ien t care tocustomer serv ice , or convey the same branding image t ha t hasbeen highly cul t ivated by Ralph Lauren. In any event , theimpression given to consumers by the USPA Par t ies ' product , and

so the reputa t ion and goodwil l of the PRL Par t i es ' , wil l not bein PRL's control . The Court therefore agrees t ha t though theharm the PRL Part ies wil l suf fe r in terms of reputa t ion andgoodwil l cannot be quant i f ied , the PRL Part ies wil l bei r reparably in jured in the absence of a permanent in junc t ion.

B. Adequacy o f Remedies a t Law

Because the losses of reputa t ion and goodwil l andresul t ing loss of customers are not prec ise ly quant i f iable ,remedies a t la w cannot adequately compensate Pla in t i f f fo r i t sin ju r ies . See genera l ly Northwestern Nat! l Ins. Co. ofMi Wisc. v. Alber ts , 937 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1991)( "The i r reparable injury requi s i t e fo r the prel iminaryinjunct ion over laps with the absent l ack of adequate remedy a tlaw necessary to es tab l i sh the equi tab le r igh t s . " ) .

57


59/61

Accordingly, the cour t finds t ha t remedies a t law are inadequateto compensate the PRL Par t ies in th i s case.

C. The Balance of Hardships

The equi t ies weigh in the PRL Par t ies ' favor . PRLhas sold men's f ragrances bear ing the PRL Polo Player logo andPOLO marks fo r over th i r ty years and has mul t ip le regis te redtrademarks fo r the i r use on fragrances. (Tr. 52:13-21.; PRL Ex.14.) The substant ia l l ike l ihood of consumer confusion andpotent ia l loss to PRL both in terms of sa les and reputa t ionthrea ten to cause the PRL Par t ies ser ious harm. In cont ra s t ,the USPA Part ies have yet to enter the f ragrance market inearnes t . While 10,000 uni t s of the USPA's product have beenproduced a t the i r cos t (Tr. 277:11-15), only approximately 3,500of which were sold (Tr. 278:10-13), th i s i s not so grea t as tooutweigh the harm tha t would be done to the PRL Par t i es absentan injunct ion.

D. The Public Interest

The consuming publ ic has a protec table i n t e r e s t inbeing f ree from confusion, decept ion and mistake. See New YorkCi ty Tria th lon , 704 F. Supp. 2d a t 344 ( \\ [T] he publ ic has an

58


60/61

i n t e re s t in not being deceived- - in being assured tha t the markit associa tes with a product i s not at tached to goods of unknownor igin and qua l i ty . " ) t ing SK & F. Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs. ,I nc ' r 625 F.2d lOSS, 1067 (3 d Cir . 1980)) i Gayle Martz, 651 F .Supp. 2d a t 85) .

Because of the l ike l ihood of consumer confusion int h i s case, the publ ic i n t e re s t would be served by the i ssuanceof an in junct ion , and t h i s f ac to r weighs in P

u.s. polo ass'n v. prl usa holdings (s.d.n.y. may 13, 2011)

Documents