No. 21-212

Dires, LLC, dba Personal Touch Beds and Personal Comfort Beds, et al. v. Select Comfort Corporation, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-08-13
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: circuit-split consumer-confusion initial-interest-confusion internet-trademark-law likelihood-of-confusion online-advertising search-engine-results search-engines trademark-infringement
Key Terms:
Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-11-19 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether courts can impose liability for a likelihood of consumer confusion in a trademark infringement action based on a consumer's initial interest in a mark, even where that consumer is not confused as to source at the time the consumer executes a purchase

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Trademark infringement claims are intended to ensure consumers are not confused as to the source of goods; indeed, the consumers’ best interests lie at the heart of the policy underpinning trademark law. Two decades ago, as courts grappled with the application of trademark law to the new Internet context, a minority of federal courts of appeals adopted a doctrine known as “initial interest confusion.” Pre-sale, initial interest confusion as adopted here could impose liability for trademark infringement that occurs when a consumer first sees a mark online, even if the consumer does not ultimately make a purchase while confused as to source. For example, liability may be imposed based simply on results returned by a search engine where no purchase is made and where no sale is lost—..e., there is no concrete harm. In the intervening years since its initial adoption, this doctrine has fallen out of favor and been sharply criticized as out of touch with how consumers use search engines. It assumes that a consumer’s search for a trademarked name means that trademark owner’s website is the only result of interest to the consumer—an assumption that is both outdated and inaccurate. Nonetheless, the Eighth Circuit adopted this doctrine for the first time— despite that it has been rejected by the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits and narrowed by every Circuit that recognizes it—holding that a defendant may be liable for a likelihood of consumer confusion outside the mark’s full context in a consumer’s purchasing decision. The question presented is: whether courts can impose liability for a likelihood of consumer confusion in a trademark infringement action based on a ii consumer’s initial interest in a mark, even where that consumer is not confused as to source at the time the consumer executes a purchase.

Docket Entries

2021-11-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/19/2021.
2021-10-26
Reply of petitioners Dires, LLC, et al. filed.
2021-10-14
Brief of respondents Select Comfort Corporation, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-09-15
Response Requested. (Due October 15, 2021)
2021-09-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-09-03
Waiver of right of respondent Select Comfort Corporation, et al. to respond filed.
2021-08-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 13, 2021)

Attorneys

Dires, LLC, et al.
Christopher W. MadelMADEL PA, Petitioner
Christopher W. MadelMADEL PA, Petitioner
Select Comfort Corporation, et al.
Andrew Scott HansenFox Rothchild LLP, Respondent
Andrew Scott HansenFox Rothchild LLP, Respondent