AutoZone, Inc. and Speedbar, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tandy Corp., Defendant-Appellee., 373 F.3d 786

Summary

The auto parts retailer used the mark "AutoZone," while the electronics retailer used the mark "PowerZone." The retailers competed directly in a very limited fashion, but for the most part, the products offered by each company were unrelated and their marks were not very similar. The appellate court grouped the auto retailer's claims into likelihood of confusion claims, which included the trademark infringement, tradename infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract claims, and the dilution claims. On appeal, the court found that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the likelihood of confusion claims because the auto parts retailer did not present sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that customers were likely to be confused by the marks. Additionally, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the federal and state dilution claims because the auto parts retailer did not present sufficient evidence of actual dilution such that ...