United States Sixth Circuit

In a Lanham Act claim, 1) use of a word mark did not create likelihood of confusion among consumers as defendant's use of its mark is in an industry far removed from that of plaintiff, 2) a logo did not create a likelihood of confusion, and 3) plaintiff has not presented evidence that use of its marks actually dilutes fame or distinctiveness.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/06/2003
• Decided 07/23/2003
• Published 07/23/2003

Judges

• Before SUHRHEINRICH and COLE, Circuit Judges;  CARR, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Daniel S. Mason (argued and briefed), Christopher T. Micheletti, (briefed), Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gerard Mantese (argued and briefed), Mantese & Associates, Troy, MI, John J. Conway (briefed), Detroit, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.