United States Sixth Circuit

Plaintiffs' trademark infringement claim was rejected because they did not presented enough evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that there existed a likelihood of confusion between POWERZONE and AUTOZONE or that Defendants' use of POWERZONE diluted the AUTOZONE mark.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/21/2004
• Decided 06/29/2004
• Published 06/29/2004

Judges

• Before:  BATCHELDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges;  CALDWELL, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Alan S. Cooper (argued and briefed), Shaw Pittman, Washington, DC, Robb S. Harvey (briefed), Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Douglas R. Pierce (briefed), King & Ballow, Nashville, TN, Jane Michaels (argued and briefed), Holland & Hart, Denver, CO, Timothy P. Getzoff (briefed), Holland & Hart, Boulder, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.