VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAHIR NAWAB, NATHAN ERLICH, SIMON BLITZ, DANIEL GAZAL, GERALD WREN, BOB WROBLEWSKI, CORPORATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, CEL-NET COMMUNICATION, INC., THE CELLULAR NETWORK COMMUNICATION GROUP, INC., d/b/a CNCG, SD TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC., VIRGIN WIRELESS, INC., IWAYCITY, and VIRGINWIRELESS.COM, Defendants-Appellees., 335 F.3d 141

Summary

The owner alleged that defendant individuals and companies (collectively, company) infringed the owner's rights in its registered mark VIRGIN by operating retail stores selling wireless telephones and related accessories and services under the trade name VIRGIN WIRELESS. The instant court concluded that, of the six Polaroid factors that pertained directly to the likelihood of consumer confusion, all but one favored the owner; the one exception, sophistication of consumers, was neutral. The owner was strongly favored by: the strength of its mark, both inherent and acquired; the similarity of the marks; the proximity of the products and services; the likelihood that the owner would bridge the gap; and the existence of actual confusion. None of the factors favored the company. The overall assessment admitted only of a finding in the owner's favor that the company's sale of telephones and related services under the mark was likely to cause substantial consumer confusion. The court also ...