United States Fifth Circuit

In a dispute over a trademark relating to eyelash extension products, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the trademark at issue arguably had many of the indicia of a suggestive mark and was therefore entitled to protection; and 2) plaintiffs showed several incidences of actual confusion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/15/2009
• Published 07/15/2009

Judges

• DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:, Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Charles Alfred Sturm (argued), Howard Lynn Steele, Jr., Steele Sturm, PLLC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Paul Clark Van Slyke (argued), Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.