Judge rules in favor

Market Analysis

• Judge Rules in favor of home appliance manufacturer in license dispute

  This case involved a major home appliance manufacturer, which held the license to produce and distribute an in-home air purification product.  Following several years of attempting to market the product nationally, the manufacturer was sued by the product inventor.  The inventor alleged that the appliance manufacturer had not followed “best practices” in its efforts to market the product.  Mind/Share conducted a marketing audit of the manufacturer’s marketing plan, execution and budgeting and provided a written report detailing these efforts and assessing their adequacy given the product and its prospective market.  The Mind/Share analysis also covered the impact of negative press reports concerning the underlying technology used in the air purifier and its likely impact on market acceptance.  Following testimony given at an arbitration hearing, the court ruled in the manufacturer’s favor.

False Advertising/Confusion

• Health products company succeeds in false advertising/trademark confusion case

Secondary Meaning

• Allegation of likelihood of confusion rests on erroneous assumption of secondary meaning of lapsed mark

• Consumer confusion and secondary meaning established at trial

Trademark Confusion

• Renamed professional association results in marketplace confusion

• Fashion knock-offs result in consumer confusion

• New brand introduction in healthcare industry results in consumer confusion

• Trade dress of over-the-counter dietary supplement blurs the distinction between house and national brands

Search Engine Issues

• Confusion due to search engine use of trademarked terms as keywords

• Contextual marketing practices confusing to consumers

Other Issues

• License-holder violates terms of license resulting in tarnishment of brand