HAMILTON INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VORTIC LLC, D/B/A VORTIC WATCH CO., VORTIC TECHNOLOGY LLC, AND ROBERT THOMAS CUSTER, Defendants-Appellees., 13 F.4th 264

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-The only modification the competitor made to the original movements was the replacement of a lever which made it easier for users to change the time, and the manufacturer failed to put forth any reason why such a modification would have been significant to consumers or somehow material to a likelihood of confusion; [2]-A consumer would view The Lancaster as an antique pocket watch modified into a wristwatch rather than an entirely new product; [3]-There had been no finding that the competitor infringed on the manufacturer's trademark because of the absence of a showing by the manufacturer of consumer confusion; [4]-The competitor adequately disclosed the origin of The Lancaster and its lack of affiliation with the manufacturer; [5]-The finding that the competitor did not act in bad faith supported by the owner's testimony describing his intent in founding the competitor.