L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision

8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 1/61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

x

UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION,

and USPA PROPERTIES, INC.,

INC.,

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

~ a g a i n s t - OPINION

PRL USA HOLDINGS, INC.,

L'OREAL USA, INC.,

and

At

- - )

USDCSDNYefendants .

DOCUMENT

ELECfRONICALLY F1LED

DOC #:

--x

A P P E A R A N C E S:DATE FILED: l:\' ·1 ~ !I l

fo r Pla in t i f f s

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

45 Rockefe l le r Plaza

New York, NY 10111

By: Gerald Ferguson, Esq.David Sheehan, Esq.

fo r Defendant L'Oreal USAt

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP

75 East 55 St ree t

New York, NY 10022

By: Robert L. Sherman, Esq.

At endant PRL

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178

By: Will iam R. Golden, J r . , Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 61



Sweet, D. J .

In th is act ion , the pla in t i f f s Uni Sta tes Polo

Associat ion, Inc. ("USPAil ) and USPA Proper t ies , Inc.

("Proper t ies" ) (col lec t ive ly, the "USPA Part ies" or

"Pla in t i f f s" ) sought a declara t ion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201:

(1) tha t they have the r igh t to l icense and s e l l in the United

States fragrance products and packaging bearing "U.S. POLO

ASSN. ," the Double Horsemen Trademark and "1890,1/ and other

products bear ing the marks iden t i f in Trademark Application

Ser ia l Nos.

products iden t i f i ed in those appl ica t ions i (2) that the i r use

and l icens ing of such fragrance products and packaging does not

violate 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 or

unfa i r competit ion with respect to the r igh t s of the defendants

PRL USA Holdings, Inc. ("PRL") and L ' O r ~ a l USA, Inc. ( " L ' O r ~ a l " )

(col lec t ive ly, the "PRL Part ies" or "Defendants") i and (3) tha t

the i r use and l icens ing of such f ragrance products and packaging

does not vio la te the common law of the Sta te of New York

re la t ing to trademark infringement, unfa i r competit ion and

trademark di lu t ion .

1




The PRL Par t ie s have brought counterclaims aga ins t the

USPA Par t ies fo r trademark infr ingement , unfa i r compet i t ion, and

t rademark di lu t ion under Sect ions 32, 43 (a) and 43 (c) the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (a) and (c), and common

law t rademark infr ingement , t rade dress infr ingement , t rademark

di lu t ion , unfa i r compet i t ion, unfa i r and decept prac t ices ,

and misappropr ia t ion in vio la t ion of the s ta tu tory and common

law each s ta te which th e USPA Par t ie s do business

including 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 a

prel iminary in junct ion .

Upon a l l proceedings had herein and the f indings

of fac t and conclusions of law se t for th ow, the USPA

Par t ie s ' reques t fo r a declara tory judgment i s denied, the PRL

Par 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 on

November 13, 2009, naming only PRL as a defendant . On February

I I , 2010, L'Orea l ' s motion to in tervene was granted. PRL f i l ed

i t s answer and counterclaims on February 16, 2010. On March 2,

2




2010, L ' O r ~ a l f i l ed i t s answer and countercla ims, and the PRL

Par 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 a

prel iminary in junct ion was converted in to a reques t fo r a

permanent unct ion. The t r i a l and submission of evidence was

held from September 27 through September 30, 2010. Final

argument was held on November 17 , 201 0.

Findings o f Fact

The Par t ies

USPA i s a not fo r -p ro f i t I l l i no i s corporat ion with a

place of business a t 4307 I ron Works Parkway, Sui te 110,

Lexington, Kentucky 40511. USPA i s the governing body of the

spor t of polo in the United Sta te s . (Tr. 137:3-6 .1

) I t has been

in exis tence cont inual ly s 1890. (Tr . 14 6 : 2 3 14 7 : 7 . ) USPA

der ives the major i ty of i t s revenue from roya l t i es received as a

r e su l t of l i censing i t s trademarks. (Tr. 297:23-299:4 . )

Proper t ies i s an I l l ino i s corporat ion with a place of

business a t 771 Corporate Drive, Sui te 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




40503, and i s a wholly-owned subs id iary of USPA. Proper t ies '

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 business

a t 650 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. PRL i s the owner and

l i censor of the trademarks of Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation,

luding Polo Player Logo and "POLO" used in connection

with f ragrances.

L'Oreal i s a Delaware corporat ion with a place of

business a t 575 f th Avenue, New York, NY 10017. L'Oreal

the exclusive l i censee of cer ta in PRL trademarks in the

categor ies of f ragrances, cosmetics and re la ted goods, including

the Polo ayer and "POLO."

in Issue

In the 1960s, Mr. Ralph Lauren s t a r t ed s o w n

business , which today i s known as Polo Ralph Lauren Corporat ion.

In the l a t e 1970s, when the predecessor to PRL (also

refer red to as PRL) decided to expand in to f ragrances, cosmetics

4




and re l a t ed products , an exclus ive l i cense agreement was ente red

in to with L'Oreal . (Deposit ion of Negar Darsses 25:21-26:9. )

In 1978, the f i r s t fragrance in t roduced in to the

market under t ha t l i cense appeared in a green bo t t l e and

packaging and prominently fea tured , and to t h i s day cont inues to

feature , the logo known as the "Polo Player Logo," as well as

the 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 years

and was voted in to the indus t ry ' s Fragrance Foundat ion 'S Hal l of

Fame. (Tr. 52: 13 - 21 . )

Beginning in approximately 2002, the PRL Par t i e s began

adding new men's f ragrances to the l i ne , each prominently

displaying the Polo Player Logo and the word mark "POLO." In

2002, POLO Ralph Lauren BLUE was launched, followed by POLO

BLACK in 2005, POLO DOUBLE BLACK in 2006, POLO EXPLORER in 2007

and 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 roduced

four 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 submit ted by the PRL

Par t i e s , and "USPA Ex." denotes a c i t a t i on to a t r i a l exh ib i t submit ted bythe USPA Par t i e s .

5




Pony Collection/II each d i aying the Polo ayer Logo and the

word "POLO. II (PRL Exs. 32-35 . )

All of the aforementioned PRL Par t f ragrances are

still being sold today. (Tr . 3 8 : 8 1 7 . ) The PRL Par t i e s /

products come ln di f fe ren t s izes and ors and exhib i t

d i f f e r en t scents / but a l l them use the Polo Player Logo and

the 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 ions

fo r the Polo Player Logo / alone o r in combination with words /

names/ symbols o r devices / fo r f ragrances and re la ted products /

including/ among others / U.S. Reg. Nos. 1/212/060i 1 /327/818i

2/922/574i 3/076/806i and 3/095/176/ as well as a pending use

based 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 at ta ined incontes tab le s ta tus .

(PRL Ex. 14.)

The USPA Trademarks Issue

USPA cur ren t ly owns more than 900 t rademarks

worldwide, including "U. S. POLO ASSN. 1/ and the "Double Horsemen

6




IIar k t which a re the pr imary t rademarks o f USPA'S l i cens ing

program. (USPA Ex. 14; Tr . 163 :16-165 :6 . )

Exis t ing t rademark r e g i s t r a t i o n s with r espec t t o these

two pr imary marks inc lude : (a) Regi s t r a t i on No. 3,370,932 fo r

USPA and th e Double Horsemen Trademark i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class

25i (b ) Regi s t r a t i on No. 3,598,829 fo r the Double Horsemen

Trademark in I n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14, 18 and 25i (c )

Regi s t r a t i on No. 2,188,594 fo r th e Double Horsemen Trademark

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 14 i (d) Regi s t r a t i on 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 r a t i on N O . 2 , 282,427 fo r U. S. POLO ASSN. SINCE 1890 in

I 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 , 908,391

fo 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 r a t i on No. 3,367,242 fo r U.S. POLO ASSN. I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Class 25.3

USPA began to commercia l ly l i c e n s e its t r ademarks in

th e e a r l y 1980s, b u t d id no t a c t i v e l y l i c e n se in th e United

Sta t es 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 and

goods in prec ious meta ls o r coa ted the rewi th , no t i nc luded i n o t h e r c l a s s e s ;

j ewel ry , p r ec i ous s tone s ; ho ro log i c a l and chronomet r ic i n s t rument s . /I

I 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 goods

made of these mater ia l s and not inc luded in o t h e r c l a s s e s ; animal sk ins ,

hides i t runks and t r a v e l l i n g bags i umbre l l as paraso l s and walking s t i c k s i

whips 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 ,

footwear, headgear ." See 37 C.F.R. § 6 . 1 .

7




The USPA Par t ie s and t h e i r l i censees have

manufactured, marketed, and sold products bear ing the words

"U. S. POLO ASSN. [[ and the "Double Horsemen Mark, II numerous

apparel and accessory categories . The products have been sold

more than 5,000 independent r e t a i l s tores throughout the

Uni ted Sta tes , luding major na t iona l chains such as Kohl 's ,

J .C. Penney, Sears , Ross, Peebles , Goody's, Dr. J ' s , and Stage

Stores , as well as in f i f t een USPA ou t l e t s tores . (Tr .209 :22

210:2. )

JRA Trademark Company Ltd. ("JRA") i s USPA's master

l icensee in Uni ted Sta tes f ragrances and a l l products

other than es and watches. (Tr. 166: 15 18.)

In 2008, USPA commenced discuss ions with JRA about

expanding in to the fragrance market. (Tr. 212:24 213:4-8. )

In 2009, JRA designed packaging use on a USPA

men's fragrance t ha t featured the Double Horsemen Mark, which

was being used by USPA on apparel . (Tr . 214 : 22 24.) The

packaging 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 ing

as well as a th in l ine creat ing a border around the per imeter of

8




the f ron t panel I appearing in gold . (PRL Ex. 16; Tr. 54:1

5 5 : 2 1 . )

Approximately 10 ,000 uni t s USPA's fragrance bearing

the Double Horsemen Mark were produced in November 2009. (Tr.

277:11 1 5 . ) Around t ha t t ime and shor t ly the reaf te r , USPA's

f ragrance product was offered fo r sale a t USPA ou t l e t s to res and

through V.I.M. Jeans s to res . (Tr. 2 2 1 : 2 0 - 2 2 2 : 7 . ) Between

November 2009 and March 2010 , approximately 3 ,5 0 0 uni t s were

sold through USPA out le t s to res . (Tr. 278: 10 1 3 . )

On March 19 , 2010 , counsel fo r USPA represented in

wri t ing to t h i s Court tha t USPA agreed to "immediately cease a l l

sa l e s of fragrance products , and use packaging bearing the

Double Horsemen mark and to r e f r a in from adver t i s ing, offer ing

fo r sa le , se l l ing , t r ans fe r r ing or donat ing fragrance products

and packaging bear ing Double Horsemen Trademark" un t i l af t e r

the decis ion on the PRL Par t i e s ' motion fo r a prel iminary

in junc t ion motion. (Tr . 2 7 7 : 16 - 2 5 . ) On March 24 , 2 010 , the

USPA's wri t t en submission was "so ordered" by the Court .

In addi t ion to the approximately 3 ,5 0 0 uni t s of the

USPA Par t ies ' fragrance t ha t were so ld , approximately 1 ,000 were

reca l led and quarant ined. (Tr. 2 7 8 : 1 - 2 7 9 : 7 . ) Approximately

9




5,500 uni t s are unaccounted for , except to the extent it i s

known tha t they were sold to V.I.M. Jeans a t some po in t in t ime.

(Tr . 2 7 8 : 14 - 2 5 . ) I t i s not known whether they continued to be

sold a f t e r March 19, 2010. (Tr. 279: 1- 4 . )

Prior L it ion

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

th i s cour t agains tPRL

fo r a declara tory judgment t ha t var ious

a r t i c le s of merchandise bear ing a mounted polo p layer symbol d id

not in fr inge PRL's Polo Player Logo. PRL counterclaimed

t rademark infr ingement . The mat te r came before the Honorable

Leonard B. Sand.

In h is Order ( the "1984 Order") , Judge Sand denied

USPA's reques t fo r a judgment of non infr ingement , found tha t

USPA and i t s l i censees infr inged PRL's Polo Player Logo, POLO,

POLO BY RALPH LAUREN trademarks and PRL's t rade dress , and

engaged in unfa i r compet i t ion. (USPA Ex. 15 8 9 . ) The 1984

Order enjoined USPA and i t s l i censees from in fr inging PRL's

marks, including the Polo Player Logo and the word "POLO," but

not from engaging in a l i censing program t ha t did not use

in fr inging trademarks. Spec i f i ca l ly , the 1984 Order permit ted

USPA to conduct a r e t a i l l i censing program using i t s name, "a

10




mounted polo p layer o r equest r ian or equine symbol which i s

dis t inc t ive f r o m . [PRL's] polo player symbol in i t s content

and perspect ive,U and other trademarks t ha t r e fe r to the spor t

of polo, subject to ce r ta in condi t ions and r e s t r i c t ions se t

for th in the 1984 Order. ( I d . 9 i Tr. 16 9 : 9 - 2 5 . ) Paragraph 8

of the 1984 Order bars any use of the "United Sta tes Polo

Associat ion ll name or o ther name "which emphasizes the word POLO

(or the words U.S. Polo), separate , apar t and d i s t inc t from any

suchname in a

mannert ha t

i sl ike ly

to cause confusion."(USPA

Ex. 15 8 .)

The requirements of the 1984 Order are incorporated

in to 1 subl icense agreements into which JRA enters and in to

the 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 asse r t cla ims under both Sect ion 32 of the

Lanham Act, fo r t rademark infr ingement , and Sect ion 43(a) , fo r

11




fa l se des igna t ion or ig in o r passing of f . 4 Sect ion 43 (a ) of

th e Lanham Act proh ib i t s the use in commerce of any word, term,

name, symbol, device , o r combination t he reof t ha t

i s 1 to cause confusion, or to cause mistake , o r

to as to th e a f f i l i a t i o n , connect ion, or

as soc ion of such person wi ano ther person, o r as

to th e or ig in , sponsorsh ip , or approval of h is o r

goods, se rv ices , o r comme a c t i v i t i e s by another

person

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 s ha l l , without th e consent of the

r e g i s t r a n t

(a) use in commerce any reproduct ion , coun te r fe i t ,

copy, o r colorable imi ta t ion of a reg i s t e red mark in

connect ion with the e of any goods o r

se rv ices on o r in connect ion with which such use i s

l i ke ly to cause confusion, o r to cause mi or to

deceivei o r

(b) reproduce, coun te r fe i t , copy, o r colorably imi ta te

a reg i s t e red mark apply such to l abe l s ,

s igns , p r i n t s , packages, wrappers, es o r

adver t i sements intended to be used in commerce upon o r

in connect ion with sale. . of goods or s e rv ices

on o r in connect ion with which such use i s l ike ly to

cause confusion, o r to cause mistake , o r to deceive ,

sh a 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 c la ims. PRL Part ies 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 ing

U.S. 763, 768 {1992}}.

12

Section 43 (a )

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , 505

4




15 U.S.C. § 1114.

In order to p reva i l in an act ion for t rademark

infringement under Sect ion 43(a) , a party must es tab l i sh , under

the two-prong t e s t Gruner + Jahr USA Publ ' v . Meredith

Corp. , 991 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir . 1993), (1) tha t it possesses a

val id , l ega l ly protec table trademark and (2) t ha t the jun ior

user ' s mark i s l ike ly to cause confusion as to the or ig in or

sponsorship 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.2d

a t 1074 (2d r . 1993)). This two-prong t e s t i s appl icable to

t rademark infringement c l brought under both Sect ion 32 and

Sect ion 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Virgin Enterpr i ses , 335 F. 3d

a t 148 (c i t ing Time Inc. v. Petersen Publ ' Co. L. L. C ., 173

F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir . 1999)). Accordingly, both claims wi l l be

analyzed together here .

A. The PRL Parties ' Mark i s Valid and Enti t l ed to Protect ion

"To va l id and protec table , a mark must be capable

of dis t inguish ing the products it marks from those of others . It

Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., Inc. v. Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., Inc . , 192 F.3d

337, 344 (2d Cir . 1999). In t h i s rcu i t , scale ar t i cu la ted

13




by Judge Friendly in Abercrombie & Fi tch----.------------ - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

Inc . / 537 F.2d 4/ 9 (2d Cir . 1976) / i s t rad i t iona l ly ut i l ized to

determine the dis t inc t iveness of a mark. The Abercrombie

continuum c la s s i f i e s marks from l ea s t to most dis t inc t ive in

categories : generic/ descr ipt ive / suggestive/ arb i t ra ry or

fanciful . The Second Circui t has elaborated th i s continuum as

follows:

A generic mark i s genera l ly a common descr ipt ion of goods/

one tha t re fers / or has come to be understood as refer 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 fea tures /qual i t i es or ingredients in ordinary language/ or descr ibesthe use to which a product i s put . A suggest ive mark

employs terms which do not descr ibe but merely suggest thefea tures of the product / requi r ing the purchaser to use

imagination/ thought and perception to reach a conclusion

as to the nature of goods. [T]he term "fanciful/II as aclass i fying concept, i s usual ly appl ied to words invented

sole ly for the i r use as trademarks. When the same l egal

consequences at tach to a common word/ i . e . , when it i s

appl ied in an unfamil iar way, the use i s cal led

"arb i t ra ry . I

Genesee Co. Inc.~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____ ________ Co., 124 F.3dtroh 137,~ ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ __

142 (2d Cir. 1997) ( interna l quotat ions and c i ta t ions omitted) .

A mark's dis t inc t iveness determines i t s l evel

pro tec 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 ]anc i fu l , a rb i t ra ry , and suggest ive marks are deemed

inherent ly dis t inc t ive ll and so "wil l be automat ica l ly

protec ted ." rd . Descript ive marks f a l l in between the two

14




extremes. See Pret Girl Inc. v. Pret Gir l Fashions Inc . , -

- F. Supp. 2d No. 11 0662 (NGG) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. March

14 ,2011) .

The word "polo" may be c, for example, with

respect to polo sh i r t s , or descr ipt ive , with respect to aspects

of the sport . With respect to men's fragrances , the PRL

Par t i es ' contend tha t the POLO word mark and Polo Player Logo

are arb i t ra ry . As Judge Sand s ta ted in h is 1984 opinion,

"[p]olo i s ce r t nly not suggest ive or descr ipt of a

fragrance which a t o i l e t manufacturer would seek to imi ta te ."

U.S. Polo Associat ion, Inc . v. Polo Fashions, Inc . , No. 84 Civ.

1142 (LBS) , 1984 WL 1309, a t *14 (Dec. 1984) ( "Sand

Opinion") . There i s no natura l connection between the image

a polo player and fragrance products . The same i s t rue of the

POLO word mark.

Products

Inc . , 451 F. Supp. 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), Judge Goette l held

tha 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 io r i and i s demonstrated in the

record in th i s case tha t the use of POLO in a trademark sense on

non-apparel i tems unrelated to the spor t , such as home

furnishings, i s a fanciful , not a descr ipt ive use." Sand

In Polo Fashions Inc. v. Extra

15




Opinion, 1984 WL 1309, a t *3. This Court s imi la r ly concludes

tha t as a common word or symbol appl i an unfamil iar way, POLO

and the Polo Player Logo qual i fy as a rb i t r a ry and there

"wil l be automat ica l ly protec ted ." Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., 192 F.3d

a t 344.

Regardless, PRL owns a number of federa l trademark

reg i s t ra t ions fo r the Polo Player Logo, alone or in combination

withwords, names, symbols or

devices,for

f ragrancesand

re 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 , as

well as a pending use-based Trademark Application No.

77/883,516. "A ce r t i f i ca te of r eg i s t r a t i on with PTO i s

prima fac ie evidence tha t the mark i s reg i s te red and va l id

i . 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 in

commerce." 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 a rb i t r a ry marks, PRL's Polo Player

Logo and POLO trademarks as used in the context here on men's

f ragrances, are able .

16




B. The Polaroid Factors

I t i s well es tabl ished tha t the e igh t fac tors se t

for th in Polaroid Elects . . , 287 F.2d 492

(2nd Cir. 1961), cer t . denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961), control the

analysis of whe there i s a l ike l ihood of confusion in

trademark ringement cases in s Circui t . Those fac tors

include: (1 ) s t rength of h is mark, (2) the degree of

s imil between the two marks, (3) the proximity the

products , (4) the l ikel ihood tha t pr io r owner wil l bridge

the gap, (5) actual confusion, (6) the rec iprocal of defendant ' s

good th in adopting i t s own mark, (7) the qual i of

defendant ' s product , and (8) the sophis t i ca t ion of the buyers.

Id. a t 495. '" [E]ach fac tor must be eval in the context of

how it bears on the ul t imate ques t ion of l ike l ihood of confusion

as to the source of the product . ' " Brennan's Inc. v. Brennan's

Rest . 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 ta ted below, under the Polaroid

analys is , USPA's use of the Double Horsemen and "U.S. POLO ASSN.

17




1890" marks in th e con tex t and manner6

in which they have been

used on a men's f ragrance in f r inges the PRL P a r t i e s '

t rademark r i g h t s .

As a th resho ld i s sue , th e USPA P ar t i e s contend t h a t

Judge Sand ' s 1984 Order was th e produc t a Polaro id ana lys i s

and t h a t to p re v a i l th e PRL P ar t i e s must show t h a t th e USPA

Par t i es vio la t ed th e 1984 Order . This Cour t conducts an

independenta ro id ana lys i s , as USPA

doesnot seek to

useth e

marks a t i s su e in th e 1984 case o r in th e con tex t o f th e same

market cond i t ions .7

Judge Sand ' s 1984 Order an t i c ip a t e s re

app l i ca t ion o f Polaro id by p e rmi t t i n g USPA to conduct a

l i c ens ing program us ing "a mounted polo p l a y e r o r eques t r i an o r

equine symbol which i s d i s t iv e from [PRL's] polo

p l ay e r symbol its co n ten t and pe rspec t ive , " but bar r ing any

use of th e "Uni ted Sta te s Polo Associa t ion" name or o the r name

6Except as per ta in to i t s f indings regarding USPA's good f a i th , the

Cour t ' s Lanham Act i s based upon USPA's use of the , not blue,t rade dress , because the USPA Part ies withdrew t he i r use of blue t rade dress

during the course of th i s l i t iga t ion (Dkt. 45), and represented to the Court

tha t "as of March 17, 2010 they have ceased, and wil l not resume, use of the

color 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 s

might weigh more heavi in favor of the PRL Par t i es ' 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 prohibi t ing

USPA's use of blue t rade dress u t i l i z ing white or s i l ve r l e t t e r ing o r

emphasizing the world "POLO." (USPA Ex . 15 8-9. )

7 USPA's Double Horsemen Mark did not ex i s t pr ior to 1996. Brand

awareness of PRL's Polo Player Logo in 1984 was approximately 37%, 1984

Opinion a t **12-13, while today it i s 82 85%. (PRL Ex. 13.) In 1984 PRL had

only one fragrance product tha t displayed the Polo Player Logo, while today

it has at l eas t nine. (Tr. 36:8-37:21 (Marino); PRL Par t ie s Exs. 26 35.)

18




"in a manner t ha t i s l ike ly to cause confusion." (USPA Ex. 15

8-9.) ana lys i s of which symbols are d i s t i nc t i ve from

PRL/ S Polo Player logo-- tha t iS not in fr inging and whether the

"United States Polo Associat ion" name o r o ther name i s used in a

manner tha t " i s l ike to cause confusion" r equ i res appl ica t ion

Polaroid . In f inding a l ike l ihood confusion l the Court

duly notes t ha t the USPA pa r t i e s have v io la t ed the 1984 Order

insofar as it prohib i ted USPA/s adoption of in fr inging marks.

lNor are the PRL Par t i e s cla ims forec losed by a j u ry /s

f inding in 2006 t ha t while (1) USPA/s id Double Horsemen mark

inf r inged PRL/s Polo ayer Symbol (2) the s o l id Double

Horsemen mark with "USPA out l ine Double Horsemen mark I andI

out l ine Double Horsemen mark with "USPN' were not in fr inging

Inc. v.he context of the appare l market. PRL USA

Uni 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 in

the context f ragrances, not apparel . This case involves the

use of the Double Horsemen mark with the word mark "U. S. POLO

ASSN. 1890," not alone o r with "USPA" beneath . In cont ras t to

the 2006 apparel case, the dominant term in the word port ion of

USPA's mark here and t ha t which consumers are most l ike ly to

view as having trademark s igni f icance- i s "POLO." As the

19




Trademark Tr ia l and Appeal Board noted in re jec t USPA's

summary judgment motion regarding use of the marks a t i s sue

here fo r f ragrances and other products in Class 3 ,8 th i s i s sue

here "involves di f fe ren t t ransac t ional fac t s mater ia l to the

claim. Therefore the d i s t r i c t cour t s order [ in the apparel

l i t iga t ion] does not have preclus ive e f fec t on t h i s proceeding."

For same reasons, the apparelPRL Ex.

l i t iga t ion is not control l ing10

1. The Strength of the PRL Parties' Marks

The s t rength a mark re fers to " s tendency to

ident i goods sold under the mark as emanating from a

par t i cu l a r source." Loi 799 F.2d a t 873 ( in ternal- - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - -

quotat and c i t a t ions omit ted) . The concept of s t rength

8Class 3 includes : "Bleaching preparat ions and other substances fo r

laundry use; cleaning, pol ish ing, scouring and abras ive preparat ions; soaps;

perfumery, essent i a l o i l s , cosmetics, ha i r lo t ions ; den t i f r i ces . " 37 C.F.R.

§ 6.l.

9 The Trademark Tr i a l and Appeal Board also noted tha t the appare l

l i t i ga t ion addressed the Double Horsemen with and without "USPA" beneath it

fo r goods in In ternat ional Classes 14, 18, 25, and 28 ( respect ively , precious

metals /s tones ; l ea the r an d bags; clo th ing, footwear, headgear; games and

spor t 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 in

the apparel market, due to the grea te r use of a t t i r e to s ignal a f f i l i a t ion

with a spor ts team or associa t ion than the use of f ragrances , and possib le

di f ferences in consumers in the two markets . In some ins tances , the word

mark "POLO" and PRL's Polo Player Logo might also be considered more

arb i t r a ry with respect to fragrances than with respect to apparel , gIVIng

r 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 s

context .

20




encompasses both " inherent d i s t inc t iveness" and "acquired

dis 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 Logo

and POLO marks are extremely s t rong. PRL has reg i s te red federa l

t rademarks fo r the Polo Player Logo, alone o r in combination

with words, names, symbols or devices, fo r f ragrances and

re la tedproducts , 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 d i s t i nc t i ve . Lois

Sportswear, 799 F.2d a t 871. As discussed above, both the PRL

Polo Player Logo and "POLO" word mark are a rb i t r a ry with regard

to f ragrances and so the inherent dis t inc t iveness i s robus t .

Furthermore, a t t r i a l , the PRL Par t ie s demonstrated t ha t in the

l a s t ten years alone, L' Oreal has spen t more than one hundred

mil l ion dol adver t i s ing PRL men's f ragrances bear ing

Polo Player and "POLO" mark in the U.S. , wi th for ty mil l ion

dol la r s spent adver t i s ing POLO BLUE. (Tr. 39:15 25 (Marino) i PRL

Ex. 15.) s bols te r s i t s s t rength . See Morningside Group

Ltd. v. Morningside Capi ta l Group, L.L.C. , 182 F.3d 133, 139 (2d

Cir .1999); 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. v. 24 7 Tribeca Fi tness ,

447 F. Supp. 2d 266, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

21




At the same t ime, the awareness in the marketplace of

these marks i s commercial ly s t rong , with evidence a t t r i a l

demonstrat ing tha t surveyed men and women ages 18 to 60 repor t

between 82% and 85% awareness of PRL fragrances bearing the Polo

Player Logo and "POLO" brand, ranking it second in brand

awareness in the f ie lds of fashion and f ragrances. (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 l

sales of men's fragrances bearing the Polo Player Logo and

"POLO" mark werej u s t

over one bi l l ion dol la rs (Tr. 39:1-10;PRL

Par t i es Ex. 15), with one dol la r out of every $12 spent on men's

fragrances in the United Sta tes being spent on a PRL fragrance

bearing the Polo ayer Logo and "POLO" mark. (Tr. 42: 5 -11. )

Accordingly, the s t rength of the marks weighs s t rongly

in PRL Par t s ' favor.

2. The Degree o f S ~ i l a r i t y Between the Two Marks

"Of sa l ien t importance among the Polaroid factors i s

the's l a r i t y of the marks f t e s t , which at tempts to discern

whether the s imi la r i ty of the marks i s l ike ly to cause confusion

among potent customers." Louis Vit ton Mal le t i e r v. Burl ington

Coat Factory Warehouser 426 F.3d 532, 537 (2d Cir . 2005). An

assessment of the s imi la r i ty of marks examines the s imi la r i ty

22




between them in appearance sound I and meaning. See Grotr ian l

Helf fer ich Schulz Nachf. v. Ste & Sons 523

F.2d 1331 (2d Cir . 1975). When assess ing the s imi la r i ty of

marks I cour ts "analyze the mark [s I] overa l l impression on a

consumer I consider ing the context in which the marks are

displayed and the t o t a l i fac tors t ha t could cause confusion

among prospec t ive purchasers . 1I Louis Vit ton l 426 F.3d a t 537.

When the products being compared wi l l not be displayed

s ide-by-s ide in the marketplace as they wi l 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 ques t ion i s not "whether

di fferences are eas i ly discernable on simultaneous viewing but

whether they are l ike ly to be memorable enough to dispel

confusion on se r i a l viewing. II Louis Vuit tonl

426 F.3d. a t 538.

The analys is should consider " the products ' s izes ,

typefaces, and package designs and colors lf to determine whether

the overa l l impression in the re levant market context would lead

consumers to bel ieve t ha t the jun ior user t s product emanates

from the same source as products bear ing the senior user ' s mark.

Paco Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Perfumes t 234 F.3d 1262 (2d

Cir . 2000).

23




The s imi la r i ty between the PRL Par t ies ' and the USPA's

marks i s apparent . Both marks are s imilar in perspect ive -

containing a polo player on horseback, facing s l igh t ly to the

viewer 's l e f t , leaning forward with a polo malle t ra ised. Both

are monochrome logos tha t are s imilar in t he i r l eve l of

abs trac t ion. Both are displayed in embossed metal l ic or glossy

mater ia l - -wi th PRL's appearing in a number of colors including

s 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 di fference between the marks i s t the

PRL's logo contains one player , while USPA's conta ins two, one

with mallet ra ised and the other with malle t lowered, which

s ign i f i can t ly overlap. In USPA's mark, the front horseman i s

displayed sol id metal l ic ink, while the rear horseman i s only

outl ined, such that the background packaging shows through.

This gives the f ront -mal le t raised--horseman more visual

prominence, while the to rso of the rear horseman can be said to

fade in to the background. Both of USPA' s horsemen share the

same di rec t iona l perspect ive and over lap to a degree tha t it i s

d i f f i cu l t to discern i f there i s one horse or two. As counsel

for L'Oreal noted a t argument, USPA's Double Horsemen Mark

strongly resembles a composite of the PRL's Polo Player Logo

24




with the logo tha t USPA was enjoined from using in 1984 by Judge

Sand. Oral Argument Transcr ip t , 30 :18 -31 : 17 .

Except fo r the PRL Par t i e s ' Big Pony Collec t ion , the

proport ionate s ize of the logos as presented on the products i s

roughly s imi l a r . (PRL Exs. 16, 22, 23 , 25 -35 , USPA Ex. 52 . ) The

USPA's product bears a gold border tha t runs around the edge of

the f ron t panel of the fragrance box, as do some but not a l l of

thePRL

Par t i e s ' fragrance products .On both pa r t i e s '

products ,

except the PRL Par t ies ' Red White & Blue and Big Pony l i ne s , the

logos are s e t agains t a so l id color background.

The PRL Par t ies ' fragrances d isp lay the word mark

"POLO" prominently , except in the Big Pony Line. The USPA

Par t i e s ' product bears the "U. S . POLO ASSN." word mark arched

above the Double Horsemen logo and "1890" below. The typefaces

are in a s imi l a r s e r i f font , though severa l of PRL's fragrances

emphasize POLO in l a rger font as d i s t i nc t from RALPH LAUREN or

the reverse, while USPA's "U.S. POLO ASSN." i s presented in the

a l l the same s ized font .

The USPA Par t i e s mainta in tha t the USPA Marks have

been j ud ic i a 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




Daniels , and the Second Circu i t ' s aff i rmance of t ha t decis ion .

This argument i s unpersuas No pr i o r decis ion addressed the

marks a t i s sue here in the fragrance market, and the s imil ty

of marks "analys is focuses on the par t i cu l a r indust ry where

marks compete. /I Brennan 's , 360 F. 3d 955.

Nor does th e add i 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 o fUS

Inc . No. 97

Civ. 3448 (RSW) , 1997 WL 316599, a t *6. I t i s general ru le

t ha t one may not "avoid a 1 ihood of confusion by the

addi t ion [to the use r ' s mark] of desc r ip t o r otherwise

subordinate 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 "Slim"). USPA's addi t ion of

the words "U.S" "ASSN." and "1890" does not change emphasis

on "POLO" as the operat ive par t th e word mark, or the

l ike l ihood of confusion when used in conjunct ion with the Double

Horsemen logo. See

Inc . , 470 F.2d 689, 692 (2d Cir . 1972) (addi t ion of "by Bradley"

did not prevent confusion between "Cross" pens and "LaCross by

Bradl pens) i 544 F. Supp. 2d 302, 311

(S. D. N. Y. 2008) ( "F i r s t Ladies o f Chic" confusingly s la r to

"Chic") i Am. Express Co. v. Am. Express Limousine Serv . , 772 F.

26




Supp. 729, 733 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (addit ion of "Limousine Services"

to "American Express" mark enhanced ra ther than dispel

confusion) . Indeed, USPA discla imed the use of "U. S." t "ASSN."

and "1890" in trademark appl ica t ion , fur the r underscoring

tha t ne i the r can properly be regarded as the pr inc ipa l or

dominant par t of t he i r mark. See Application Ser ia l Nos.

77/738,105 and 77/760,071.

Considering the t o t a l i t y of fac tors tha t could cause

confusion, the di fferences between the pa r t i e s ' marks are

unl ikely to be memorable enough to dispe l confusion. The

s imi la r i ty of the marks subs tan t i a l ly increases the l ikel ihood

of confusion between the USPA Par t i e s ' and PRL Par t i es '

products .

3. The Proximity o f the Products

This fac tor "concerns whether and to what extent the

two 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 nature

of the products themselves and the s t ruc ture of the relevant

market. Among the cons idera t ions germane to the s t ructure of

the market are the c lass of customers to whom goods are

27




sold, the manner in which the products are adver t ised , and the

channels through which the goods are so ld . II rd . (c i ta t ions and

in te rna l quota t ions omit ted) . "[T]he the secondary use r l s

goods are to those the consumer has seen marketed under the

pr io r use r ' s brand, the more l ike ly the consumer wil l

mistakenly assume a common source." - - ' - - = : . . = . . . . . < - = . . : - - ' - - = - - ' - - = ~ . . . . . . . . . A i . . . - = - " - = - ' 3 3 5 F. 3 d

a t 150 (c i t Cadbury Beverages, 73 F.3d a t 480-81) .

Both par t i e s ' products are men's TheUSPA

Par t ies urge t ha t they and the PRL Par t are not in

compet i t ive proximity due to product pr ic ing d i t , actual

and 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 fragrance

products wil l so ld primari ly in mid- t ier s tores such as

Sears , Kohl 's , and J .C. Penney and a t a po in t of

approximately $25, while USPA argues t ha t PRL f s e l l o n

average fo r between $50 and $70 and fo r the most in high-

end s to res such as Bloomingdales and Saks.

However, test imony of Les l ie Marino, L' , s

General Manager, Des Fragrance Divis ion , es tab l i shed tha t

fragrances displaying PRL Par t i es ' Polo Player Logo and POLO

mark are sold in department s tores as wel l as spec ia l ty s tores ,

28




cosmetic s to res , and over the i n t e rne t .I I (Tr. 44:6 45:1; 46:17

24. ) David Cummings, CEO of Proper t ies , t e s t i f t ha t the mid-

t i e r s to res where USPA in t to s e l l i t s fragrance so s e l l

over 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. Cummings

acknowledged the l i cense agreement between the USPA Par t i e s

and t h e i r l i censee does not re s c t the channels of

d i s t r ibu t ion of i t s f ragrance product , and agreed t ha t

i s nothing to preven t d i s t r ibu t ion the USPA Par t i e s '

fragrance in the same channels used by the PRL Par t i es . (Tr.

285:4-10.)

While USPA contends it wi l l s e l l i t s fragrances a t

lower pr ice-po s than those PRL, th i s di f fe rence i s not so

vas t as to place a I competi t dis tance between the

companies ' produc ts . USPA's re l iance on Louis Vit ton Malle t ie r

v . Burl Coat Warehouse No. 04-civ- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ . ,2644 (RMB) , 2006 WL 1424381, a t *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) , i s

unavai l ing , as t ha t cour t found adequate di f fe rence between

defendant ' s handbags which d fo r $29.98, and p l a i n 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 to re s such asKohl 's an d J .e . Penney. (Tr. 44:21-45:3.)

29

I I




Estee Lauder Court found no suppor t fo r 1 ihood of

confusion 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 to

20 t imes more per ounce, id . a t 1511-12, ne i the r of which i s the

case here .

In cons ide ra t ion of fac to rs , the Court f inds the

produc ts to be compet i t ive ly proximate . "Moreover,

competi t ive proximity must be measured with re fe rence to the

f i r s t tw o Polaro id fac to rs , " Mobil O il Corp. v. Pegasus

Petroleum . , 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir . 1987). The s ingu la r

s t rength PRL's marks "demands t ha t [they] be given broad

pro tec t ion agains t in f r inge rs , " i d . , and the grea t s imi l ty

between two marks fu r the r the l ike l ihood t ha t a

consumer wi l l confuse USPA with PRL.

4. The Likelihood that the PRL Parties wi l l Bridge the Gap

This fac to r concerns th e 1 ihood t h a t sen io r use r

t 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 th e t ime

a s u i t i s brought wi l l l a t e r expand th e scope of i t s business so

as 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 the

pa r t i e s in t h i s case are a l ready competi t ly proximate , there

30






2d a t 318; Pf ize r , 652 F. Supp. 2d a t 523 ("The absence of proof

of ac tua l confusion i s not f a t a l to a f inding of l ike l ihood [of

confusion] , par t i cu lar ly where, as here , the jun ior mark has

been 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 i e s argue t ha t the PRL Par t ie s proffered

no evidence of ac tua l confusion in the apparel indus t ry and t ha t

the par t i e s ' co-exis tence in the apparel indus t ry weighs agains t

a showing of a l ike l ihood of confusion wi th regard to

f ragrances. This argument i s unconvincing fo r tw o reasons .

Fi r s t , insuf f i c i en t evidence regarding whether o r not ac tua l

confusion exi s t s in the apparel indus t ry was presented a t t r i a l

fo r the Court to adequately weigh i t s po ten t i a l a f fec t . Second,

there has been no co exis tence of f ragrances without confusion

a fac t , which i f t rue , would suppor t USPA's claim. Lack of

confusion as to apparel mayo r may not be i nd ica t ive of lack of

confusion as to f ragrances.

Consumer surveys can provide another form of evidence

of the l ike l ihood of confusion. See . ,----- ' ' - - --= '- Me t L i . f ~ _ e - , - , _ _I__n_c,,--._v_.

i t an Nat ' l Bank, 388 F. Supp. 2d 223, 232 (S.D.N.Y.

2005) ("a survey as to the potent ia l consumer confusion may be

weighed when consider ing the l ike l ihood of confusion") (c i t ing

32




Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 259

(2d Cir . 1987 ) ) i Jordache Enterpr i ses Inc. v. Levi Strauss &

Co., 841 F. Supp. 5061

518 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Evidence of actual

confusion consis ts of (1) anecdotal evidence of confused

consumers in the marketplacei and (2 ) consumer survey

evidence")

Here, the par t i e s each conducted surveys . L 'Oreal

engaged George Mantis, who conducted two surveys . Mant is /s

f i r s t survey was a nat ional mall in te rcept conducted in each of

the nine Census d i s t r i c t s with 324 ind iv iduals who had a s ta ted

intent ion to purchase a men/s fragrance product in the next s ix

months. 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/s

declara tory judgment complaint . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 150-51.) The

contro l group was shown a Mustang Blue cologne package and

product . Id . a t 152-53. That cologne comes in metal l ic blue box

and displays a horse in p ro f i l e se t agains t a black and s i lve r

grate with "MUSTANG BLUE" below. Survey noise was est imated

based on the proport ion of survey respondents who associa ted the

contro l sample with PRL (PRL Ex. 9 a t 4), and subt rac ted from

the reported confusion leve ls to produce a "net confusion"

f igure.

l

33




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 ed

change in th e co lo r to be used fo r t h e i r packag ing . The survey

involved over 500 i n d i v i d u a l s drawn from th e nine census

d i s t r i c t s . (Tr. 86 : 15 -1 7) . Both t e s t samples in th e second

Mant i s ' survey disp layed th e Double Horsemen Trademark, one

bear 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 same

Mustang Blue cologne and packaging was used as the c o n t ro l . (PRL

Ex . 10 Ex. G.)

Mant is ' f i r s t survey found 32.4% g ro s s confus ion and

4.6% confus ion in th e co n t ro l group, r e s u l t i n g i n a n e t

confusion l eve l o f 27.8%. This rep re sen t s th e con t ro l l ed

p o r t i o n o f those who b e l i ev ed th e f ragrance b ea r in g th e Double

Horsemen Mark wi th \\U. S. POLO ASSN." arched above and \\1890"

below on blue packaging was p u t ou t by, connec ted to , o r

au th o r i zed by Polo Ralph Lauren . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 2 .)

The second Mant is survey found g ro s s confus ion l ev e l s

o f 25.9% fo r th e use of USPA's Double Horsemen Trademark

combinat ion wi th \\U.S. POLO ASSN." above and \\1890" below, on a

be ige background, as wel l as 21.2% g ro s s confus ion fo r th e use

34




o f th e Double Horsemen in combinat ion with "US PA'l below I on a

be ige background. (PRL Ex. 10 a t 6 .) Mantis found 3.4% confus ion

fo r th e Mustang c o n t r o l product . This eq u a te s to 22.5% n e t

confusion fo r th e "U . S. POLO ASSN. II t e s t product and 17.8% n e t

confusion fo r the "US PA'l t e s t product .

The USPA P ar t i e s presen t ed a survey conducted by Dr.

Myron Hel fgo t t l which involved in te rv iews with 1 / 000 re sponden t s

in shopping mal ls ten geograph i ca l l y d i spe r sed met ropol i t an

a reas . (USPA Ex. 48. ) The sample was screened to cons i s t of

men and women between th e ages of 18 and 35 who repor ted t h a t

they a re l i k e l y to purchase a menl s f ragrance produc t cos t i ng

$20 to $30 in th e nex t s ix months. In each in te rv iew l

respondents were shown a bo t t l e and ca r ton fo r a men's

f 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 packages

a l l se t on beige packaging with gold l e t t e r i n g : (1 ) th e Double

Horsemen logo with "USPAII benea th I (2) th e Double Horsemen logo

wi th "U.S. POLO ASSN. I I beneath l and (3) the Double Horsemen logo

with "U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and "1890 11 below. Hel fgo t t

used two c o n t ro l s . One spor t ed i d e n t i c a l packaging and gold in k

to the t h ree t e s t ed f ragrances , excep t i n s t ead of th e Double

Horsemen logol th e con t ro l f ea t u red USPA's horsehead mark l which

35




consis t s of a pic ture of a horse ' s head in an oval shape formed

by a s ty l ized horseshoe, with "U.S. POLO" arched above. The

second contro l i s a fragrance which presents a gold embossed

polo player as t r ide a horse, facing di rec t ly to the viewer ' s

r 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. The

packaging i s black.

The Helfgott survey found 28% gross confusion with the

Double Horsemen logo with "USPA" beneath; 27% gross confusion

with 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. 48

a t 2.) The survey found 28.5% confusion with the USPA's

horsehead mark cont ro l and 32% confusion with the Beverly Hil l s

Polo Club cont ro l . Id . The Helfgot t survey concluded tha t

because confusion leve ls for the t e s t products were s imi la r to

or lower than confusion leve ls provoked by the cont ro ls , net

confusion was zero for a l l t e s t products and "the source of the

measured t e s t product confusion was something other than

presence of the double horsemen i l lu s t ra t ion . " (USPA Ex. 48 a t

13. ) Because the l evel of confusion associa ted with the three

t e s t products did not exceed the l eve l of confusion caused by

36




the Beverly Hil l s Polo Club control , Helfgot t concluded tha t

"[ t ]here i s not res idual confusion." Id . a t 14.)

The ie s dispute the methodology of each other ' s

surveys. i f i c a l ly , the PRL Par t ie s asse r t tha t Dr.

Helfgot t ' s f survey quest ion, which s ta ted tha t respondents

were being shown a fragrance tha t cos ts $24.99 and l imi ted

respondents to what "organization" put out the product , id . a t

8 , l ike ly fected the way tha t those surveyed responded. In

addi t ion, the PRL Par t ie s contend tha t Hel fgot t ' s screening

method, which l imi ted respondents to those with the in ten t to

purchase a fragrance in the $20 to $30 ce range,

preconditioned respondents by referencing pr ice . Dr. Hel fgot t

acknowledged a t t r i a l tha t s t ipping off respondents to a

pr ice could have responses (Tr. 401:17-402:7

(He l fgot t» , and tha t the proper sample in a forward looking

confusion survey consis ts those l ike ly to purchase in the

product category, not only prospect ive purchasers of one

company's products. (Tr. 405:1-19 (Helfgot t ) . ) The Helfgott

s tudy 's screening for those in tending to purchase a men's

frangrance in the $20-$30 rangei the inc lus ion of cos t

Hel t' s f i r s t quest ioni and tha t the s tudy ' s f i r s t quest ion

limi survey responses to "organizat ion", a l l precondit ioned

h is survey respondents.

37




The PRL P ar t i e s a lso c r i t i c i z e th e Hel fgo t t s tudy on

th e bas i s t h a t B i l l Ba r t l e t t o f Suburban was r e sp o n s i b l e fo r

reading the q u es t i o n n a i r e s and decid ing how each of th e

responses on those q u es t i o n n a i r e s should be coded i.e., confused

o r not confused (Tr. 375 :14 -16 i 433:4-7 (H e l fg o t t » , and Dr.

Hel fgo t t conceded t h a t he p e r so n a l l y d i d 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 o f

th esurvey

responses Mr.Ba r t l e t t deemed

prob lemat icand

read to

him over t e lephone , and th e Court c re d i t s t h a t t e s t imony .

(Tr. 406:25-407:6 , 407:16 22 (He l fgo t t ) . ) More p ro b 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 in a

"verbat im" sec t ion t h a t s e t o u t th e re sponses o f in terview

respondents recorded on the q u es t i o n n a i r e s by th e in te rv iewers

dur ing th e survey in te rv iews, such t h a t the Cour t i s not ab le to

i ndependent ly determine whether th e re sponses were proper ly

c l a s s i f i e d .

The most s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r in th e Hel fgo t t s tudy was

its choice o f co n t ro l v a r i ab l e s . Wi thou t a proper con t ro l ,

t h e re i s no benchmark fo r de te rmin ing whether a l i ke l ihood o f

confus ion es t imate 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 in

th e survey methodology. "In des ign ing a con t ro l group s tudy I

ex p er 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




shares as many cha rac t e r i s t i c s with the cont ro l group as

poss ib le , with the key except ion of the charac te r i s t ic whose

inf luence i s being assessed ." J . Jacoby, "Experimental Design

and the Select ion of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive

Advert is ing Surveys," 92 Trademark Rep. 890, 920 (2002) (quoting

the Federal Judic ia l Center ' s Reference Manual on Scien t i f i c

Evidence) Here, Helfgot t ' s cont ro ls were improper in tha t they

included the very elements being assessed, 13 namely, the word

mark "POLO" and, in the case of the Beverly Hil l s Polo Club

cont 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 ther doubt.

(USPA Par t ies Ex. 48 (28.5% for Horse Head, 32% fo r Beverly

Hil l s Polo Club).) See JacobYI 92 Trademark Reporter 890 1 931

32 ("[I]n the best of a l l possible worlds, it would not be

desi rable for a control to yie ld confusion es t imates tha t

exceeded 10%. I f did, the cont ro l i t s e l f would begin to reach

an act ionable l evel of confusion and i t s u t i l i t y as a contro l

thereby compromised."). Dr. Helfgot t was not in subs tant ia l

disagreement. He t e s t i f i ed tha t the Beverly Hil l s Polo Club

sample rea l ly did not ac t as a control . (Tr. 436:21 437:7

13(See L ' O r e a l ' s co u n te r c l a ims 36, 46, 47; PRL Par t i e s Ex. 14; Docket

Entry 52 a t 2, 10.)

39




14

fgott) .14) The USPA Par t ie s argue tha t surveys using contro ls

tha t generate confusion l evels in excess of 20% have been used

and accepted. However, those cont s were used surveys

di f fe ren t from those here , in which survey respondents were

shown both the p la in t i f f ' s product and the defendant ' s product

bearing the mark. See Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v . Victor i a ' 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 higher

l evels confusion. See Phyl l i s J . Welter , TRADEMARK SURVEYS §

6.01[4] ease #6, June 1999). The r e su l t s of those s tudies

therefore cannot be proper ly compared with s tud ies here .

Dr. Helfgot t ' s survey i s fur the r l imi ted in i t s

u t i l i t y because it permit ted respondents to "correc t for

confusion" by reading the l abe l back to the in terv iewer , and

In re levant par t the t r anscr ip t reads:Q. And in your repor t you referred to tha t contro l as a benchmark,

i s n ' t tha t r ight?

A. Yes.

Q. You can look a t it.

A. Yes, yes, yes.Q. But you don ' t - - but the r epor t doesn ' t descr ibe what the benchmark

was, r ight? I mean, what was the measurement tha t const i tu ted thebenchmark?

A. I t was a l ikel ihood of confusion response.Q . So you would agree with me tha t it wasn ' t measuring what survey

exper ts cal led background noise?A. No, . I agree with tha t .

(Tr. 436:21 437:7 (Helfgot t ) . )

40




allowed respondents to view the t e s t samples for 8 10 minutes

while being quest ioned. (Tr. 387:23 388:1; 388:2-20; 390:16

391:12 (Helfgot t ) . ) 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 ies

contend tha t Mantis ' f i r s t survey question was leading. That

question asked "who or what individual , company or organizat ion

makes or puts out th is product?" a f te r respondents wereshown

USPA's packaging and product . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 5.) That form and

sequence of questioning has become s tandard methodology in

trademark infringement surveys, however, following the

methodology used in _ U ~ n ~ i ~ o ~ n__ ~ C ~ a _ r ~ b ~ l ~ · d _ e ~ __ ~ ~ _ . ~ v _ . __E_v ~ e ~ r ~ __ ~ __ I ~ n ~ c ~ . , 531

F.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 survey

question required the respondent to answer "which company or

s tore do you th ink puts out th i s shi r t?" despi te the fac t tha t

the defendant was an ind iv idual . Omitting a poss ib le choice

( there, " indiv idual 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, and

allowed the respondent to provide his /her genuine answer. The

41




f i r s t Mantis survey quest ion therefore was not misleading. This

f inding i s confirmed by the a t ive ly s imi la r levels of gross

confusion 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 study d id

not screen fo r pr ice are meri t l e ss . USPA was not marketing the

product a t the time and i t s price was unknown. (Tr. 89: 7 15

(Mantis) . ) As Dr. Helfgot t pr inc ipa l ly acknowledged (Tr. 405:1

25 (Helfgot t ) ) , it wasproper

fo rMantis not

toscreen

fo r

pr ice .

The USPA Par t ie s addi t iona l ly dispute the

appropr ia teness the Mantis s tudy ' s cont ro l , arguing t ha t the

Mustang 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 so

fa r as the Mustang product i s cur ren t ly on the market, did not

conta in any of the elements being assessed, provided the survey

respondent the opportuni ty fo r guessing, contained a symbol of a

horse and, with respect to the f i r s t survey, was the same co lo r

as the t e s t sample. While the Mantis survey ' s contro l could

have perhaps shared more fea tures with the t e s t product in terms

of the shape and mater ia l of the fragrance box, the Court gives

some weight to i t s r e su l t s .

42




The confusion leve ls ascer ta ined by the Mantis surveys

have been accepted as indica t ive of l ike l ihood of confusion by

other courts in th i s Circui t . See Kraft General Foods, Inc, v.

~ l l i e d Old English, Inc . , 831 F. Supp. 123, 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

(discussing a mall in tercept survey tha t indica ted net confusion

of twenty-six percent (26% ) and f inding the "extreme

demonstrat ion of confusion evidenced by the survey demonstrates

Kraft ' s l ike l ihood of success on the meri ts , as even a

substant ia l ly l esser showing of confusion would support Kraf t ' s

motion fo r a preliminary in junct ion") . See also Empressa Cubana

Del 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 of

confusion) ; 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 iengese l l schaf t v. Uptown Motors, No. 91 Civ. 3447

(DLC) 1995 WL 605605 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1995) (two surveys

showing 17.2% and 15.8% net confusion j us t i f i ed grant of

injunction) .

The Mantis surveys are appropria te ly suggest ive of

actual confusion. Accordingly, t h i s fac tor weighs in the PRL

Par t i es ' favor.

43




6. USPA's Intent in Adoptinq I ts Mark

"Courts and commentators who have considered the

quest ion equate a lack of good fa i th with the subsequent use r ' s

in tent to t rade on the good wi l l of the trademark holder by

creat ing confusion as to source o r sponsorship." EMI Catalogue

Partnership v. Hil l , Holl iday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc . , 228

F.3d 56, 67 (2d Cir . 2000) (c i ta t ions omitted) (noting inquiry

i s "whether defendant in adopting i t s mark in tended to

capi ta l i ze on p la in t i f f ' s good wi l l " ) . "Bad fa i th genera l ly

refers to an at tempt by a jun ior user of a mark to exp lo i t the

good wil l and reputa t ion of a senior user by adopting the mark

with the in ten t to sow confusion between the tw o companies'

products ." Starbucks v. Wolfe's Coffee Inc . , 588 F.3d

97 (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 to

confuse . ' " Id . (quoting 4 McCarthy on Trademarks § 23.113).

Bad fa i th can be found where pr i o r knowledge of the

senior use r ' s mark or t rade dress i s accompanied by s imi l a r i t i e s

so strong tha t it seems pla in tha t de l ibe ra te copying has

occurred. Paddington Corp. v. Att ik i Imps. & Di s t r i b . , Inc . , 996

F.2d 577, 587 (2d Cir . 1993) ("In tent ional copying, of course,

does not require ident ica l copying. Where the copier references

44




the pr l o r dress in es tabl i sh ing her des ign wi th apparent aim

of 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 iar with the PRL

Par t ie s ' marks and t rade dress , extens i ve his tory of

t rademark l i t iga t ion between the USPA's in ten t to

capi ta l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and goodwill can be i n fe r red from

i t sdecis ion to

adopt a mark i s so s t r ik inglys imi la r to

the PRL Polo Player Logo and t ly employ the same co lo r and

s imi la r t rade dress to PRL's most popular

fragrance l ine sold under o Player Logo. (Tr. 55: 10 -21

(Marino) i PRL Par t ie s Exs. 16 and 27.) The explana t ion given by

USPA's Pres ident , Mr. Cummings, to expla in i t s i n i t i a l adoption

of s imi la r blue t rade s i s not persuas ive . Cummings

t e s t i f i ed tha t blue packaging was used because USPA had adopted

blue t rade dress , on the inseam and waistband l abe l s and

hangtags a r t i c in i t s appare l l i ne s , and USPA

bel ieved t ha t using blue packaging would be t t e r enable consumers

to ident 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 ion

e n t i by choosing a logo tha t depic ts a polo in a

posi t ion and from a perspect ive t ha t d if from Polo

45




Player Logo with a more c lear ly d i s t inc t form of packaging ( ~ . g .

i n i t i a l l y u t i l i z ing a di f fe ren t color , non metal l ic ink, and

with no th in matching border edging). But it chose not to do

so. That the USPA Par t ie s and t he i r l i censee did not have any

exper t i se in purveying f ragrances or develop a s t ra teg ic

business plan, a budget , or su f f i c i en t funding for adver t i s ingi

and tha t they worked with a l i censee which would not disc lose

i t s name because i t was concerned, as USPA was aware, tha t it

might be dragged in toa

lawsuit with Ralph Laruen and had been

unable to f ind sublicensees due to th rea t of a t rademark act ion

(Tr. 270: 22-277: 10 (Cummings)) fur the r ind ica tes tha t the USPA

Par t ie s intended to capi t a l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and goodwil l -

ins tead of bui lding t he i r own. Therefore, the Court f inds tha t

USPA adopted i t s mark with the in ten t ion of capi t a l i z ing on

PRL'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 an

examination of the qual i ty of USPA's f ragrance product . The

15 This i s d i s t i nc t from a f ind ing tha t USPA knowingly acted unlawfully a t

l eas t with regard to USPA's adoption of the Double Horsemen mark on

f ragrances . Whether or not the USPA par t i es acted in re l iance on the 1984

Order and 2006 apparel l i t iga t ion in adopting the Double Horsemen with regard

to f ragrances , th i s i s not in tension with the Cour t ' s f inding tha t USPA

adopted the mark, and fo r fragrances i n i t i a l l y with t rade dress tha t i s

s t r ik ingly s imilar to the POLO BLUE l ine , with the in ten t ion of cap i ta l iz ing

on PRL's reputa t ion , goodwil l , and any confusion between i t s and the PRL's

product.

46


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/goodwill.ls

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/goodwill.ls



Court makes no f indings on t h i s i s sue , as n e i t h e r USPA nor th e

PRL Pa r t i e s pro f fe red evidence in t h i s r eg a rd , and the USPA

Pa r t i e s ' produc t was pu l l ed from th e market near ly immedia te ly

a 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 t

i s th e r e a l gravamen of t h i s f a c t o r , Accordingly , "a sen io r

u s e r may sue t o p r o t e c t h i s r epu ta t i on even where th e

i n f r i n g e r f s goods a re o f top q u a 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 r epu ta t i on in [a

j u n i o r users ] hands , no m at te r how capable 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 t

have found t h a t s i m i l a r i t y in th e q u a l i t y th e produc ts may

c r e a t e an even g r e a t e r l i ke l ihood of confus ion as to source

inasmuch as consumers may expec t produc ts o f s i m i l a r q u a l i t y to

emanate from the same source . See Tommy H i l f i g e r~ - ~ ~ - - - ~ Inc . v . Na ture 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 the

j u n i o r u s e r ' s product 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 i ng t h a t because p a r t i e s both manufacture

47




qual i ty apparel , the senior user need not be concerned about

reputa t ional harm due to tarnishment , but tha t the equivalent

qual i ty of the products "supports the inference tha t they

emanate from the same source") .

Thus, while th i s fac tor i s neutra l , e i the r reasoning

might addi t ional ly support the PRL Par t ies ' claims.

8. The Sophist icat ion o f Fragrance Buyers

"Generally, the more sophis t ica ted and careful the

average consumer of a product i s , the l ess l ike ly it i s tha t

s imi l a r i t i e s in trademarks wil l resu l t in confusion

concerning the source or sponsorship of the product . II Bris to l

Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc . , 973 F.2d 1033, 1046 (2d

Cir. 1992). Although it may be tha t purchasers of expensive

fragrances are typical ly found to be somewhat sophis t ica ted

consumers, see e . . , Nina Ricci , S.A.R.L. v. Gemcraft Ltd . , 612

F. Supp. 1520, 1529 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), there i s nothing in the

record to indica te tha t purchasers of low- to mid-priced

fragrances a t low- to mid-range r e t a i l e r s are comparably

sophis t icated. The USPA Part ies s ta te that they wil l s e l l the i r

apparel and other products a t Sears and s imi lar mid- t ie r

merchandisers a t pr ice points below those of the PRL Par t i es .

48




In so fa r as t h i s w i l l be the case , p ro sp ec t i v e p u rch ase r s of

th e USPA P a r t i e s ' products may nonethe less be confused in to

bel ieving t h a t USPA's product i s an au thor ized "down market II

vers ion o r ex tens ion of th e PRL P a r t i e s ' f ragrance p roducts , o r

t h a t USPA and the PRL P ar t i e s are otherwise a f f i l i a t e d . See

Nikon Inc . v . Ikon Corp. , 987 F. 2d 91, 95 (a f f i rming d i s t r i c t

c our t ' s f inding t h a t consumers o f lower-end products were l e s s

soph i s t i ca t ed and "could be confused about an a f f i l i a t i o n

between the p roduct s . II) •

"Where a second-comer ac t s in bad f a i t h and

i n t en t i o n a l l y cop ies a t rademark o r t r ade d re s s , a presumpt ion

a r i s e s t h a t the cop ier has succeeded in caus ing confus ion . II

Paddington Corp. , 996 F.2d a t 586 87 ( c i t ing ~ W . - = a : : . = r : : . = n _ e _ r_ _ _ _ _ _ __n_c_.

v . American Broadcast ing Cos . , 720 F.2d 231, 246 47 (2 d

Cir.1983) i Per fec t F i t Indus t r i es , 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 ty

King Dis t r ibu to r s , In c . , 832 F.2d 1317, 1322 (2d Cir . 1987)) .

This f ac to r t he re fo re cu t s in th ePRL

Pa r t i e s ' favor .

Weighing the Fac to rs

49




Weighing the var ious Polaroid fac tors and based on the

evidence 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 . POLO

ASSN. II in the context of men 1 s f ragrances crea tes a s trong

ll ikel ihood of confusion with the PRL Par t ie s products . The

marks are so s imi la r tha t it i s l ike ly tha t consumers would be

confused 1 whether by bel ieving PRL had author i zed a down

market product o r by confusing products out

I I . State Law C l a ~ s

\\ [T] standards Sect ion 43(a} claims the

Lanham Act and unfa i r compet i t ion claims under New York Law are

almost ind is t inguishable . II Tri - Star P ic tures Inc. v. Unger 1 14

F. Supp. 2d 339 1 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Genesee Brewing

124 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 to

es tab l i sh a claim fo r i r compet i t ion under the common law i s

bad fa i th . Gir l Scouts v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ ' g Group,

Inc . , 808 F. Supp. 1112, 1131 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)1 a f f ' d , 996 F.2d

1477 (2 d Cir . 1993) ("Under New York law, common law unfa i r

competi t ion claims close ly resemble Lanham Act claims except

i n so fa r as the s t a t e law claim may require an addi t ional element

•

50

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




of bad fa i th or in ten t II ) ( in ternal quota t ions omitted) i Jeff rey

Mils te in , 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 New

York common law i s the bad fa i th misappropr ia t ion of the labors

and expenditures of another , l ike ly to cause confusion or to

deceive purchasers as to the or ig in of the goods H) .

Since the PRL Par t ies have demonstrated a l ikel ihood

of confusion between the par t i e s ' marks under t h e i r Lanham Act

claims and USPA in tended to capi t a l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and

goodwill , the PRL Par t ie s preva i l on the i r unfa i r compet i t ion

claims as wel l .

Because the PRL Par t ie s have prevai led on t h e i r Lanham

Act and unfa i r compet i t ion claims, the Court need not reach the

par t i e s ' addi t ional s ta te law claims in order to i s sue a

permanent in junct ion . The scope of the r e l i e f sought- an

in 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 in

men's f rag rances - - i s ident ica l regard less of whether the PRL

Par t ies would succeed on any of t he i r addi t ional claims.

IV. Per:manent Injunct ive Re l i e f

51




Tradi t ional ly , in trademark infringement act ions in

t h i s Circui t , a par ty seeking a permanent in junct ion "must

succeed on the mer i ts and show an absence of an adequate remedy

a t law and i r reparable harm i f the r e l i e f i s not granted ." Gayle

Martz, 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 (2d

Cir. 2006). However, the Second Circu i t ' s recent decis ion in

Sal inger v. Colt ing, 607 F.3d 68, 74-75, announced in the

context of a copyright infringement act ion tha t th i s s tandard

fo r in junct 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 t

held tha t a preliminary in junct ion should i ssue where the

pla in t i f f has shown a l ike l ihood of success on the mer i ts 16and

that : (1) "he i s l ikely to suf fer i r reparable injury in the

absence of an in junct ion"; (2) "remedies a t law, such as

monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate fo r tha t in jury";

(3) the balance of hardships t i p s in h is favor; and (4) "the

'publ ic in te res t would not be disserved ' by the issuance of a

preliminary in junct ion ." Sal inger v. Colt 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 junc t ion i s essen t i a l l y the same as

fo 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 the mer i t s ra the r than ac tua l success ." Prod

Co. v. Vil lage of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 .

52






Moreover, th i s Court recognizes t ha t "\ a maj or

depar ture from the long t r ad i t i on of equi ty prac t ice should not

be l igh t ly impl ied . ' " eBay, 547 U.S. a t 392 (quoting Weinberger

v. Romero-Barcelo, 426 U.S. 305, 320 (1982)). Sal inger strongly

suggested tha t eBay's standard appl ies in the context of any

in junct ion , so long as Congress does not in tend otherwise . 607

F.3d a t 77-78 & n.7 . As in eBay, no Congressional i n t e n t to the

contrary i s evident here but ins tead the reverse .

547 U.S. a t 391 92. The Lanham Act express ly provides t ha t

federa l cour ts "have power to grant in junct ions , according to

the pr inc iples of equi ty" in trademark infr ingement and di lu t ion

cases. 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (a) . SimilarlYt the Act express ly

s ta tes tha t the senior owner of a mark "sha l l be ent i t l ed" to an

in junct ion "subject to the pr inc iples of equi ty" with respect to

di lu t ion claims. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c) (1) .

Accordingly, the Court concludes tha t the four-

factored injunct ion standard ar t i cu la ted in eBay and ~ S _ a _ l _ ~ _

appl ies to th i s act ion .

A. Likel ihood o f Irreparable Injury

54




This C i rc u i t has prev ious ly recognized a presumpt ion

of i r r e p a ra b l e harm in t rademark in f r ingement ac t ions . Even

q u i t e recen t ly , th e C i rc u i t has held t h a t as long as t he re has

no t been undue delay in br ing ing a cla im, a " p l a i n t i f f who

es t ab 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 ea t e s a

l i ke l ihood of consumer confus ion gene ra l ly i s e n t i t l e d to a

presumption o f i r r ep a r ab l e i n ju r y . " Weight Watchers lnt'l, Inc .

v . Luig ino ' s , I n c . , 423 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Ci r . 2005) i Zino

Davidof f SA v . CVS . , 571 F.3d, 246 (2d Ci r . 2009)See

a l so , Dunkin ' Donuts Franch i sed Res ts . LLC v . Tim & Tab

Inc. , No. 07-CV-3662 (KAM) (MDG) , 2009 WL 2997382, a t *8

(E.D.N.Y. Sept . 15, 2009) ( i r repa rab le in ju ry " i s au tomat ica l ly

s a t i ied by ac tua l success on t h e mer i t s as i r r ep a r ab l e harm i s

es t ab l i shed by a showing o f l i ke l ihood o f co n fu s io n . " ) ( i n t e rn a l

quota t ion and c i t a t i o n omit ted) .

P r i o r to Sa l i n g e r , which e l imina ted an analogous

presumption in the con tex t o f copyr igh t c la ims , 18 was s s

c l e a r whether eBay 's e l imina t ion o f th e presumpt ion o f

i r r e p a ra b l e harm app l ied to t rademark in f r ingement ac t ions . See

a 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. A p r i l 301

2009)

18"Af ter eBay . cour t s must n o t 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 to

i 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 7

F.3d a t 82.

55


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/DesignersImports.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/DesignersImports.com



(retaining pre-eBay presumption); Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v.

Col ibr i Corp.! 692 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (same). In

l igh t of Sal inger ' s c la r i f i ca t ion t ha t "eBay's cent ra l lesson i s

tha t , unless Congress intended a 'major depar ture from the long

t rad i t ion of equi ty prac t i ce , ! a cour t deciding whether to i ssue

an in junct ion must not adopt ' ca tegor ica l ! or ' genera l ! ru les or

presume tha t a par ty has met an element of the in junct ion

standard! 11 607 F.3d a t 77-78 & n.7 , the presumption of

i r reparable injury in trademark cases i s no longer appropr ia te .

See Pret ty Gir l , 2011 WL 887993, a t *2 & n . 4 i New York City

Triathlon! 704 F. Supp. 2d a t 342 43. Even without the

presumption, however, the PRL Par t ie s have adequately

demonstrated i r reparable harm here.

"Irreparable harm exis t s in a trademark case when the

par ty seeking the in junct ion shows tha t it wil l lose control

over the reputa t ion of i t s trademark because loss of

contro l over one ' s reputa t ion i s ne i the r 'ca lculable nor

prec ise ly compensable. 11 New York City Tria th lon , 704 F. Supp.

2d a t 343 ( interna l quota t ion marks ommitted) (quoting Power

Inc. v. Calcu Gas Inc . , 754 F.2d 91,

95 (2d Cir . 1985); Omega Importing Corp. v. Petr i-Kine Camera

Co.! 451 F.2d 1190! 1195 (2d Cir . 1971).

56




Here, absent an in junct ion , given the l ike l ihood of

confusion between the Polo Player Logo and USPA's Double

Horsemen Trademark, the reputa t ion and goodwill cul t ivated by

PRL's would be out of i t s hands. The USPA Par t ies ' product may

or may not be of high qual i ty , sold with su f f i c i en t care to

customer serv ice , or convey the same branding image tha t has

been highly cul t ivated by Ralph Lauren. In any event , the

impression given to consumers by the USPA Par t ies ' product , and

so the reputa t ion and goodwill of thePRL

Par t i e s ' , wil l not be

in PRL's cont ro l . The Court therefore agrees tha t though the

harm the PRL Par t ie s wi l l suf fer in terms of reputa t ion and

goodwill cannot be quant i f ied , the PRL Part ies wil l be

i r reparably in jured in the absence of a permanent in junct ion .

B. Adequacy of Remedies a t Law

Because the losses of reputa t ion and goodwill and

re su l t ing loss of customers are not prec i se ly quant i f iable ,

remedies a t la w cannot adequately compensate Pla in t i f f fo r i t s

in jur i es . See genera l ly Northwestern Nat! l Ins. Co. of

Mi Wisc. v. Alberts , 937 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir . 1991)

( "The i r reparable injury requi s i t e fo r the preliminary

in junct ion over laps with the absent lack of adequate remedy a t

law necessary to es tab l i sh the equi tab le r igh t s . " ) .

57




Accordingly, the cour t f inds tha t remedies a t law are inadequate

to 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 . PRL

has sold men's f ragrances bear ing the PRL Polo Player logo and

POLO marks fo r over th i r ty years and has mult iple regis te red

trademarks fo r the i r use on fragrances . (Tr. 52:13-21. ;PRL

Ex.

14.) The subs tan t ia l l ike l ihood of consumer confusion and

potent ia l loss to PRL both in terms of sa les and reputa t ion

threa ten to cause the PRL Par t ies ser ious harm. In cont ras t ,

the USPA Par t ie s have yet to enter the f ragrance market in

earnes t . While 10,000 uni t s of the USPA's product have been

produced a t the i r cos t (Tr. 277:11-15), only approximately 3,500

of which were sold (Tr. 278:10-13), th i s i s not so grea t as to

outweigh the harm tha t would be done to the PRL Par t i es absent

an in junct ion.

D. The Public Interest

The consuming public has a protec table i n t e r e s t in

being f ree from confusion, decept ion and mistake. See New York

Ci ty Tria th lon , 704 F. Supp. 2d a t 344 ( \\ [T] he public has an

58




i n t e re s t in not being deceived- - in being assured tha t the mark

it associa tes with a product i s not at tached to goods of unknown

or ig in and qua l i ty . " ) t ing SK & F. Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs. ,

Inc ' 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 in

t h i s case, the publ ic i n t e re s t would be served by the i ssuance

of an in junct ion , and t h i s fac to r weighs in P l a i n t i f f ' s favor .

Conclusion

The USPA Par t i e s contend t ha t the PRL Par t i e s are

at tempt ing to monopolize the depic t ion of the spor t of polo. No

monopoly over the use of the word polo o r i t s dep ic t ion ex i s t s .

As Judge Sand noted, the PRL Par t ie s do not have a r i gh t to take

ac t ion with respect to the use of any equest r ian f igure or the

word "polo." Sand Opinion, 1984 WL 1309, a t *17. As Judge Sand

observed, and Judge Goet tel before him, it i s c l ea r t ha t "polo"

i s gener ic with regard to polo sh i r t s and coats . rd. a t *2.

Polo may be descr ip t ive as to o ther sh i r t s and coats as well as

to var ious uses with regard to the spor t . Nothing in t h i s orde r

i s intended to prevent the USPA Par t ie s from using "polo" to the

extent they do so gener i ca l ly o r desc r ip t ive ly . There continue

59




to be coun t less ways in which the spor t o f polo can be depicted

without i n f r ing ing on the PRL Pa r t i e s ' marks.

There is , in Judge Sand ' s words, c l e a r l y room in our

v as t soc ie ty fo r both th e USPA Par t i e s and th e PRL P a r t i e s to

engage in 1 i cenaing ac t i v i t i e s t h a t do not c o n f l i c t with one

another , and nothing contained in t h i s opin ion should be

construed as prec lud ing such ac t i v i t i e s . Id. a t * 8 .

Nonetheless , to the ex ten t theUSPA

P ar t i e s use~ p o l o n

in

conjunct ion the Double Horsemen mark on f ragrances , t h i s i s

ano ther mat te r . The USPA Par t i e s use of ;'POLO'I in conj unct ion

with th e Double Horsemen mark in the con tex t here i n f r inges the

PRL P ar t i e s ' subs tan t ive trademark r i g h t s .

Based on th e f indings and conc lua ions s e t fo r th above,

th e cla ims of the uni ted s t a t e s Polo Associa t ion Par t i es are

dismissed and th e PRL Par t i es are g ran ted i n junc t ive r e l i e f .

Submit judgment on not ice . I t i s so ordered .

New York, NY

MAy if ' 2011


Documents

L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision