l'oreal polo ass'n decision
TRANSCRIPT
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 1/61
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION,
and USPA PROPERTIES, INC.,
INC.,
Pla in t i f f s , 09 Civ. 9476
~ a g a i n s t - OPINION
PRL USA HOLDINGS, INC.,
L'OREAL USA, INC.,
and
At
- - )
USDCSDNYefendants .
DOCUMENT
ELECfRONICALLY F1LED
DOC #:
--x
A P P E A R A N C E S:DATE FILED: l:\' ·1 ~ !I l
fo r Pla in t i f f s
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefe l le r Plaza
New York, NY 10111
By: Gerald Ferguson, Esq.David Sheehan, Esq.
fo r Defendant L'Oreal USAt
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP
75 East 55 St ree t
New York, NY 10022
By: Robert L. Sherman, Esq.
At endant PRL
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
By: Will iam R. Golden, J r . , Esq.
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 2/61
Sweet, D. J .
In th is act ion , the pla in t i f f s Uni Sta tes Polo
Associat ion, Inc. ("USPAil ) and USPA Proper t ies , Inc.
("Proper t ies" ) (col lec t ive ly, the "USPA Part ies" or
"Pla in t i f f s" ) sought a declara t ion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201:
(1) tha t they have the r igh t to l icense and s e l l in the United
States fragrance products and packaging bearing "U.S. POLO
ASSN. ," the Double Horsemen Trademark and "1890,1/ and other
products bear ing the marks iden t i f in Trademark Application
Ser ia l Nos.
products iden t i f i ed in those appl ica t ions i (2) that the i r use
and l icens ing of such fragrance products and packaging does not
violate Sect ion 43(a) and (c ) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a) and (c), nor cons t i tu te infr ingement , di lu t ion or
unfa i r competit ion with respect to the r igh t s of the defendants
PRL USA Holdings, Inc. ("PRL") and L ' O r ~ a l USA, Inc. ( " L ' O r ~ a l " )
(col lec t ive ly, the "PRL Part ies" or "Defendants") i and (3) tha t
the i r use and l icens ing of such f ragrance products and packaging
does not vio la te the common law of the Sta te of New York
re la t ing to trademark infringement, unfa i r competit ion and
trademark di lu t ion .
1
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 2 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 3/61
The PRL Par t ie s have brought counterclaims aga ins t the
USPA Par t ies fo r trademark infr ingement , unfa i r compet i t ion, and
t rademark di lu t ion under Sect ions 32, 43 (a) and 43 (c) the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (a) and (c), and common
law t rademark infr ingement , t rade dress infr ingement , t rademark
di lu t ion , unfa i r compet i t ion, unfa i r and decept prac t ices ,
and misappropr ia t ion in vio la t ion of the s ta tu tory and common
law each s ta te which th e USPA Par t ie s do business
including New York General Business Law ("GBU') Sect ions 133,
349 and 360 1. The PRL Par t ie s also f i l a motion fo r a
prel iminary in junct ion .
Upon a l l proceedings had herein and the f indings
of fac t and conclusions of law se t for th ow, the USPA
Par t ie s ' reques t fo r a declara tory judgment i s denied, the PRL
Par t , reques t fo r a permanent in junct ion i s granted.
Prior Proceedings
This act ion was commenced by the USPA Par t ie s on
November 13, 2009, naming only PRL as a defendant . On February
I I , 2010, L'Orea l ' s motion to in tervene was granted. PRL f i l ed
i t s answer and counterclaims on February 16, 2010. On March 2,
2
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 3 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 4/61
2010, L ' O r ~ a l f i l ed i t s answer and countercla ims, and the PRL
Par t ies moved fo r a pre l iminary in junct ion .
On consent of the par t i e s , the motion fo r a
prel iminary in junct ion was converted in to a reques t fo r a
permanent unct ion. The t r i a l and submission of evidence was
held from September 27 through September 30, 2010. Final
argument was held on November 17 , 201 0.
Findings o f Fact
The Par t ies
USPA i s a not fo r -p ro f i t I l l i no i s corporat ion with a
place of business a t 4307 I ron Works Parkway, Sui te 110,
Lexington, Kentucky 40511. USPA i s the governing body of the
spor t of polo in the United Sta te s . (Tr. 137:3-6 .1
) I t has been
in exis tence cont inual ly s 1890. (Tr . 14 6 : 2 3 14 7 : 7 . ) USPA
der ives the major i ty of i t s revenue from roya l t i es received as a
r e su l t of l i censing i t s trademarks. (Tr. 297:23-299:4 . )
Proper t ies i s an I l l ino i s corporat ion with a place of
business a t 771 Corporate Drive, Sui te 430, Lexington, Kentucky
-Tr . " denotes a c i t a t i on to the t r i a l t r an sc r ip t .
3
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 4 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 5/61
40503, and i s a wholly-owned subs id iary of USPA. Proper t ies '
e funct ion i s to manage the 1 ing program of USPA. (Tr .
297:23 299:4.)
PRL i s a Delaware corpora t ion with a place of business
a t 650 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. PRL i s the owner and
l i censor of the trademarks of Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation,
luding Polo Player Logo and "POLO" used in connection
with f ragrances.
L'Oreal i s a Delaware corporat ion with a place of
business a t 575 f th Avenue, New York, NY 10017. L'Oreal
the exclusive l i censee of cer ta in PRL trademarks in the
categor ies of f ragrances, cosmetics and re la ted goods, including
the Polo ayer and "POLO."
in Issue
In the 1960s, Mr. Ralph Lauren s t a r t ed s o w n
business , which today i s known as Polo Ralph Lauren Corporat ion.
In the l a t e 1970s, when the predecessor to PRL (also
refer red to as PRL) decided to expand in to f ragrances, cosmetics
4
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 5 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 6/61
and re l a t ed products , an exclus ive l i cense agreement was ente red
in to with L'Oreal . (Deposit ion of Negar Darsses 25:21-26:9. )
In 1978, the f i r s t fragrance in t roduced in to the
market under t ha t l i cense appeared in a green bo t t l e and
packaging and prominently fea tured , and to t h i s day cont inues to
feature , the logo known as the "Polo Player Logo," as well as
the word mark "POLO" and l e s s prominently "Ralph Lauren." (Tr.
3 5 : 4 - 9 i PRL Ex. 2 6 . 2)
That fragrance has been sold cont inuously fo r 32 years
and was voted in to the indus t ry ' s Fragrance Foundat ion 'S Hal l of
Fame. (Tr. 52: 13 - 21 . )
Beginning in approximately 2002, the PRL Par t i e s began
adding new men's f ragrances to the l i ne , each prominently
displaying the Polo Player Logo and the word mark "POLO." In
2002, POLO Ralph Lauren BLUE was launched, followed by POLO
BLACK in 2005, POLO DOUBLE BLACK in 2006, POLO EXPLORER in 2007
and POLO Ralph Lauren RED, WHITE & BLUE in 2009. (Tr. 36: 8
37 : 2 1 i PRL Exs. 11, 27 - 3 1 . ) The PRL Par t i e s recent ly in t roduced
four new fragrances to the marketplace, re fe r red to as the "Big
"PRL Ex." denotes a c i t a t i on to a t r i a l exh ib i t submit ted by the PRL
Par t i e s , and "USPA Ex." denotes a c i t a t i on to a t r i a l exh ib i t submit ted bythe USPA Par t i e s .
5
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 6 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 7/61
Pony Collection/II each d i aying the Polo ayer Logo and the
word "POLO. II (PRL Exs. 32-35 . )
All of the aforementioned PRL Par t f ragrances are
still being sold today. (Tr . 3 8 : 8 1 7 . ) The PRL Par t i e s /
products come ln di f fe ren t s izes and ors and exhib i t
d i f f e r en t scents / but a l l them use the Polo Player Logo and
the word "POLO. II (Tr. 36:8-37:21i 51:11 19i PRL Exs. 26-35 . )
PRL owns a number of federa l trademark reg i s t ra t ions
fo r the Polo Player Logo / alone o r in combination with words /
names/ symbols o r devices / fo r f ragrances and re la ted products /
including/ among others / U.S. Reg. Nos. 1/212/060i 1 /327/818i
2/922/574i 3/076/806i and 3/095/176/ as well as a pending use
based Trademark Applicat ion Ser ia l No. 77/883 ,516 . Those
s t r a t i ons are va l id and subsis t ing in PRL, with Reg. Nos.
1,212,060 and 1 ,327,818 having at ta ined incontes tab le s ta tus .
(PRL Ex. 14.)
The USPA Trademarks Issue
USPA cur ren t ly owns more than 900 t rademarks
worldwide, including "U. S. POLO ASSN. 1/ and the "Double Horsemen
6
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 7 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 8/61
IIar k t which a re the pr imary t rademarks o f USPA'S l i cens ing
program. (USPA Ex. 14; Tr . 163 :16-165 :6 . )
Exis t ing t rademark r e g i s t r a t i o n s with r espec t t o these
two pr imary marks inc lude : (a) Regi s t r a t i on No. 3,370,932 fo r
USPA and th e Double Horsemen Trademark i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class
25i (b ) Regi s t r a t i on No. 3,598,829 fo r the Double Horsemen
Trademark in I n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14, 18 and 25i (c )
Regi s t r a t i on No. 2,188,594 fo r th e Double Horsemen Trademark
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 14 i (d) Regi s t r a t i on N o . 2 , 991,639 u.s.
POLO ASSN. SINCE 1890 in I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 25i (e)
Regi s t r a t i on N O . 2 , 282,427 fo r U. S. POLO ASSN. SINCE 1890 in
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14 and 18 i (f) R e g i s t r a t i o n N o . 2 , 908,391
fo r U.S. POLO ASSN. i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Classes 14 and 18; and (g)
Regi s t r a t i on No. 3,367,242 fo r U.S. POLO ASSN. I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Class 25.3
USPA began to commercia l ly l i c e n s e its t r ademarks in
th e e a r l y 1980s, b u t d id no t a c t i v e l y l i c e n se in th e United
Sta t es u n t i l 1998. (Tr . 167: 19 - 168 : 15 . )
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 14 covers " [p ] re c ious meta l s and t h e i r a l loys and
goods in prec ious meta ls o r coa ted the rewi th , no t i nc luded i n o t h e r c l a s s e s ;
j ewel ry , p r ec i ous s tone s ; ho ro log i c a l and chronomet r ic i n s t rument s . /I
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 18 covers " [ l j e a t h e r and imi ta t ions o f l ea the r , and goods
made of these mater ia l s and not inc luded in o t h e r c l a s s e s ; animal sk ins ,
hides i t runks and t r a v e l l i n g bags i umbre l l as paraso l s and walking s t i c k s i
whips harness and sa dd le ry . /I I n t e r n a t i o n a l Class 25 covers " [ c ] lo th ing ,
footwear, headgear ." See 37 C.F.R. § 6 . 1 .
7
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 8 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 9/61
The USPA Par t ie s and t h e i r l i censees have
manufactured, marketed, and sold products bear ing the words
"U. S. POLO ASSN. [[ and the "Double Horsemen Mark, II numerous
apparel and accessory categories . The products have been sold
more than 5,000 independent r e t a i l s tores throughout the
Uni ted Sta tes , luding major na t iona l chains such as Kohl 's ,
J .C. Penney, Sears , Ross, Peebles , Goody's, Dr. J ' s , and Stage
Stores , as well as in f i f t een USPA ou t l e t s tores . (Tr .209 :22
210:2. )
JRA Trademark Company Ltd. ("JRA") i s USPA's master
l icensee in Uni ted Sta tes f ragrances and a l l products
other than es and watches. (Tr. 166: 15 18.)
In 2008, USPA commenced discuss ions with JRA about
expanding in to the fragrance market. (Tr. 212:24 213:4-8. )
In 2009, JRA designed packaging use on a USPA
men's fragrance t ha t featured the Double Horsemen Mark, which
was being used by USPA on apparel . (Tr . 214 : 22 24.) The
packaging used a dark blue background as i t s predominant color ,
with the Double Horsemen Mark, accompanying word mark l e t t e r ing
as well as a th in l ine creat ing a border around the per imeter of
8
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 9 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 10/61
the f ron t panel I appearing in gold . (PRL Ex. 16; Tr. 54:1
5 5 : 2 1 . )
Approximately 10 ,000 uni t s USPA's fragrance bearing
the Double Horsemen Mark were produced in November 2009. (Tr.
277:11 1 5 . ) Around t ha t t ime and shor t ly the reaf te r , USPA's
f ragrance product was offered fo r sale a t USPA ou t l e t s to res and
through V.I.M. Jeans s to res . (Tr. 2 2 1 : 2 0 - 2 2 2 : 7 . ) Between
November 2009 and March 2010 , approximately 3 ,5 0 0 uni t s were
sold through USPA out le t s to res . (Tr. 278: 10 1 3 . )
On March 19 , 2010 , counsel fo r USPA represented in
wri t ing to t h i s Court tha t USPA agreed to "immediately cease a l l
sa l e s of fragrance products , and use packaging bearing the
Double Horsemen mark and to r e f r a in from adver t i s ing, offer ing
fo r sa le , se l l ing , t r ans fe r r ing or donat ing fragrance products
and packaging bear ing Double Horsemen Trademark" un t i l af t e r
the decis ion on the PRL Par t i e s ' motion fo r a prel iminary
in junc t ion motion. (Tr . 2 7 7 : 16 - 2 5 . ) On March 24 , 2 010 , the
USPA's wri t t en submission was "so ordered" by the Court .
In addi t ion to the approximately 3 ,5 0 0 uni t s of the
USPA Par t ies ' fragrance t ha t were so ld , approximately 1 ,000 were
reca l led and quarant ined. (Tr. 2 7 8 : 1 - 2 7 9 : 7 . ) Approximately
9
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 10 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 11/61
5,500 uni t s are unaccounted for , except to the extent it i s
known tha t they were sold to V.I.M. Jeans a t some po in t in t ime.
(Tr . 2 7 8 : 14 - 2 5 . ) I t i s not known whether they continued to be
sold a f t e r March 19, 2010. (Tr. 279: 1- 4 . )
Prior L it ion
In 1984, USPA and i t s l i censees commenced an act ion in
th i s cour t agains tPRL
fo r a declara tory judgment t ha t var ious
a r t i c le s of merchandise bear ing a mounted polo p layer symbol d id
not in fr inge PRL's Polo Player Logo. PRL counterclaimed
t rademark infr ingement . The mat te r came before the Honorable
Leonard B. Sand.
In h is Order ( the "1984 Order") , Judge Sand denied
USPA's reques t fo r a judgment of non infr ingement , found tha t
USPA and i t s l i censees infr inged PRL's Polo Player Logo, POLO,
POLO BY RALPH LAUREN trademarks and PRL's t rade dress , and
engaged in unfa i r compet i t ion. (USPA Ex. 15 8 9 . ) The 1984
Order enjoined USPA and i t s l i censees from in fr inging PRL's
marks, including the Polo Player Logo and the word "POLO," but
not from engaging in a l i censing program t ha t did not use
in fr inging trademarks. Spec i f i ca l ly , the 1984 Order permit ted
USPA to conduct a r e t a i l l i censing program using i t s name, "a
10
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 11 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 12/61
mounted polo p layer o r equest r ian or equine symbol which i s
dis t inc t ive f r o m . [PRL's] polo player symbol in i t s content
and perspect ive,U and other trademarks t ha t r e fe r to the spor t
of polo, subject to ce r ta in condi t ions and r e s t r i c t ions se t
for th in the 1984 Order. ( I d . 9 i Tr. 16 9 : 9 - 2 5 . ) Paragraph 8
of the 1984 Order bars any use of the "United Sta tes Polo
Associat ion ll name or o ther name "which emphasizes the word POLO
(or the words U.S. Polo), separate , apar t and d i s t inc t from any
suchname in a
mannert ha t
i sl ike ly
to cause confusion."(USPA
Ex. 15 8 .)
The requirements of the 1984 Order are incorporated
in to 1 subl icense agreements into which JRA enters and in to
the so led "Brand Rule Book" generated by USPA. (Tr. 170:22
178 :18 i USPA Ex. 19.)
Conclusions o f Law
I . Claims Under Lanham Act §§ 32 & 43(a)
The par t i e s asse r t cla ims under both Sect ion 32 of the
Lanham Act, fo r t rademark infr ingement , and Sect ion 43(a) , fo r
11
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 12 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 13/61
fa l se des igna t ion or ig in o r passing of f . 4 Sect ion 43 (a ) of
th e Lanham Act proh ib i t s the use in commerce of any word, term,
name, symbol, device , o r combination t he reof t ha t
i s 1 to cause confusion, or to cause mistake , o r
to as to th e a f f i l i a t i o n , connect ion, or
as soc ion of such person wi ano ther person, o r as
to th e or ig in , sponsorsh ip , or approval of h is o r
goods, se rv ices , o r comme a c t i v i t i e s by another
person
15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (1) and (a) (1) (A) 5
Sect ion 32 of the Lanham Act provides in r e levan t pa r t :
(1) Any person who s ha l l , without th e consent of the
r e g i s t r a n t
(a) use in commerce any reproduct ion , coun te r fe i t ,
copy, o r colorable imi ta t ion of a reg i s t e red mark in
connect ion with the e of any goods o r
se rv ices on o r in connect ion with which such use i s
l i ke ly to cause confusion, o r to cause mi or to
deceivei o r
(b) reproduce, coun te r fe i t , copy, o r colorably imi ta te
a reg i s t e red mark apply such to l abe l s ,
s igns , p r i n t s , packages, wrappers, es o r
adver t i sements intended to be used in commerce upon o r
in connect ion with sale. . of goods or s e rv ices
on o r in connect ion with which such use i s l ike ly to
cause confusion, o r to cause mistake , o r to deceive ,
sh a l l be l i ab l e in a 1 ac t ion .
The PRL Par t ie s do not pursue t he i r di lu t ion c la ims. PRL Part ies Post Tr ia l Memorandum of Law a t 1 n.1 .
pro tec t s both reg is te red and t rademarks.
v . Google Inc" 562 F.3d 123, 12 8 n.3 (2d Cir. 2009) (c i t ing
U.S. 763, 768 {1992}}.
12
Section 43 (a )
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , 505
4
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 13 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 14/61
15 U.S.C. § 1114.
In order to p reva i l in an act ion for t rademark
infringement under Sect ion 43(a) , a party must es tab l i sh , under
the two-prong t e s t Gruner + Jahr USA Publ ' v . Meredith
Corp. , 991 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir . 1993), (1) tha t it possesses a
val id , l ega l ly protec table trademark and (2) t ha t the jun ior
user ' s mark i s l ike ly to cause confusion as to the or ig in or
sponsorship of the product a t i ssue . Virgin Enterpr ises v.
Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir . 2003) (c i t ing Gruner, 991 F.2d
a t 1074 (2d r . 1993)). This two-prong t e s t i s appl icable to
t rademark infringement c l brought under both Sect ion 32 and
Sect ion 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Virgin Enterpr i ses , 335 F. 3d
a t 148 (c i t ing Time Inc. v. Petersen Publ ' Co. L. L. C ., 173
F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir . 1999)). Accordingly, both claims wi l l be
analyzed together here .
A. The PRL Parties ' Mark i s Valid and Enti t l ed to Protect ion
"To va l id and protec table , a mark must be capable
of dis t inguish ing the products it marks from those of others . It
Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., Inc. v. Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., Inc . , 192 F.3d
337, 344 (2d Cir . 1999). In t h i s rcu i t , scale ar t i cu la ted
13
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 14 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 15/61
by Judge Friendly in Abercrombie & Fi tch----.------------ - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
Inc . / 537 F.2d 4/ 9 (2d Cir . 1976) / i s t rad i t iona l ly ut i l ized to
determine the dis t inc t iveness of a mark. The Abercrombie
continuum c la s s i f i e s marks from l ea s t to most dis t inc t ive in
categories : generic/ descr ipt ive / suggestive/ arb i t ra ry or
fanciful . The Second Circui t has elaborated th i s continuum as
follows:
A generic mark i s genera l ly a common descr ipt ion of goods/
one tha t re fers / or has come to be understood as refer r ing/
to the genus of which the par t icu la r product i s a species.A descr ipt ive mark descr ibes a product ' s fea tures /qual i t i es or ingredients in ordinary language/ or descr ibesthe use to which a product i s put . A suggest ive mark
employs terms which do not descr ibe but merely suggest thefea tures of the product / requi r ing the purchaser to use
imagination/ thought and perception to reach a conclusion
as to the nature of goods. [T]he term "fanciful/II as aclass i fying concept, i s usual ly appl ied to words invented
sole ly for the i r use as trademarks. When the same l egal
consequences at tach to a common word/ i . e . , when it i s
appl ied in an unfamil iar way, the use i s cal led
"arb i t ra ry . I
Genesee Co. Inc.~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____ ________ Co., 124 F.3dtroh 137,~ ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ __
142 (2d Cir. 1997) ( interna l quotat ions and c i ta t ions omitted) .
A mark's dis t inc t iveness determines i t s l evel
pro tec t ion . At one end, \\ [g] ener ic marks are not protec table ."
Lane Capital Mgmt., 192 F.3d a t 344. While a t the other /
"[ f ]anc i fu l , a rb i t ra ry , and suggest ive marks are deemed
inherent ly dis t inc t ive ll and so "wil l be automat ica l ly
protec ted ." rd . Descript ive marks f a l l in between the two
14
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 15 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 16/61
extremes. See Pret Girl Inc. v. Pret Gir l Fashions Inc . , -
- F. Supp. 2d No. 11 0662 (NGG) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. March
14 ,2011) .
The word "polo" may be c, for example, with
respect to polo sh i r t s , or descr ipt ive , with respect to aspects
of the sport . With respect to men's fragrances , the PRL
Par t i es ' contend tha t the POLO word mark and Polo Player Logo
are arb i t ra ry . As Judge Sand s ta ted in h is 1984 opinion,
"[p]olo i s ce r t nly not suggest ive or descr ipt of a
fragrance which a t o i l e t manufacturer would seek to imi ta te ."
U.S. Polo Associat ion, Inc . v. Polo Fashions, Inc . , No. 84 Civ.
1142 (LBS) , 1984 WL 1309, a t *14 (Dec. 1984) ( "Sand
Opinion") . There i s no natura l connection between the image
a polo player and fragrance products . The same i s t rue of the
POLO word mark.
Products
Inc . , 451 F. Supp. 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), Judge Goette l held
tha t the use of POLO on t i e s i s fanc i fu l . Judge Sand concluded
" tha t it would low a fo r t io r i and i s demonstrated in the
record in th i s case tha t the use of POLO in a trademark sense on
non-apparel i tems unrelated to the spor t , such as home
furnishings, i s a fanciful , not a descr ipt ive use." Sand
In Polo Fashions Inc. v. Extra
15
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 16 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 17/61
Opinion, 1984 WL 1309, a t *3. This Court s imi la r ly concludes
tha t as a common word or symbol appl i an unfamil iar way, POLO
and the Polo Player Logo qual i fy as a rb i t r a ry and there
"wil l be automat ica l ly protec ted ." Lane Capi ta l Mgmt., 192 F.3d
a t 344.
Regardless, PRL owns a number of federa l trademark
reg i s t ra t ions fo r the Polo Player Logo, alone or in combination
withwords, names, symbols or
devices,for
f ragrancesand
re la ted products , including, among others , u.s. Nos.
1 , 212 , 060 i I , 327 , 818 i 2 , 922 , 574 i 3 , 076 , 806 i and 3 , 095 , 176 , as
well as a pending use-based Trademark Application No.
77/883,516. "A ce r t i f i ca te of r eg i s t r a t i on with PTO i s
prima fac ie evidence tha t the mark i s reg i s te red and va l id
i . e . , pro tec t ib le ) , tha t reg i s t ran t owns the mark, and tha t
reg i s t ran t has the exc lus ive r igh t to use the mark in
commerce." Lane . , 192 F.3d a t 345 (c i t ing
900 F. 2d 558, 563 (2d Cir.
1990)). The USPA Par t ie s have not rebut ted t h i s presumption.
As reg i s t a rb i t r a ry marks, PRL's Polo Player
Logo and POLO trademarks as used in the context here on men's
f ragrances, are able .
16
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 17 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 18/61
B. The Polaroid Factors
I t i s well es tabl ished tha t the e igh t fac tors se t
for th in Polaroid Elects . . , 287 F.2d 492
(2nd Cir. 1961), cer t . denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961), control the
analysis of whe there i s a l ike l ihood of confusion in
trademark ringement cases in s Circui t . Those fac tors
include: (1 ) s t rength of h is mark, (2) the degree of
s imil between the two marks, (3) the proximity the
products , (4) the l ikel ihood tha t pr io r owner wil l bridge
the gap, (5) actual confusion, (6) the rec iprocal of defendant ' s
good th in adopting i t s own mark, (7) the qual i of
defendant ' s product , and (8) the sophis t i ca t ion of the buyers.
Id. a t 495. '" [E]ach fac tor must be eval in the context of
how it bears on the ul t imate ques t ion of l ike l ihood of confusion
as to the source of the product . ' " Brennan's Inc. v. Brennan's
Rest . L.L,C' r 360 F.3d 125, 130 (2d Cir.2004) (quot Lois- ............--''-----
U.S.A. Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867,
872 (2d Cir. 1986))
For the reasons s ta ted below, under the Polaroid
analys is , USPA's use of the Double Horsemen and "U.S. POLO ASSN.
17
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 18 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 19/61
1890" marks in th e con tex t and manner6
in which they have been
used on a men's f ragrance in f r inges the PRL P a r t i e s '
t rademark r i g h t s .
As a th resho ld i s sue , th e USPA P ar t i e s contend t h a t
Judge Sand ' s 1984 Order was th e produc t a Polaro id ana lys i s
and t h a t to p re v a i l th e PRL P ar t i e s must show t h a t th e USPA
Par t i es vio la t ed th e 1984 Order . This Cour t conducts an
independenta ro id ana lys i s , as USPA
doesnot seek to
useth e
marks a t i s su e in th e 1984 case o r in th e con tex t o f th e same
market cond i t ions .7
Judge Sand ' s 1984 Order an t i c ip a t e s re
app l i ca t ion o f Polaro id by p e rmi t t i n g USPA to conduct a
l i c ens ing program us ing "a mounted polo p l a y e r o r eques t r i an o r
equine symbol which i s d i s t iv e from [PRL's] polo
p l ay e r symbol its co n ten t and pe rspec t ive , " but bar r ing any
use of th e "Uni ted Sta te s Polo Associa t ion" name or o the r name
6Except as per ta in to i t s f indings regarding USPA's good f a i th , the
Cour t ' s Lanham Act i s based upon USPA's use of the , not blue,t rade dress , because the USPA Part ies withdrew t he i r use of blue t rade dress
during the course of th i s l i t iga t ion (Dkt. 45), and represented to the Court
tha t "as of March 17, 2010 they have ceased, and wil l not resume, use of the
color blue as the color for the packaging of any of Pla in t i f f s '
fragrance products." Oral Argument Transcr ip t 48:23 24) ("We're notusing i t , never going to use i t " ) . Were USPA to use blue t rade dress , th i s
might weigh more heavi in favor of the PRL Par t i es ' claims because of thePRL Par t i es ' use of blue t radedress in t he i r best se l l ing POLO BLUE l ine (Tr.
39:11-25; 52:1-12; PRL Ex . 15), and Judge Sand's 1984 order prohibi t ing
USPA's use of blue t rade dress u t i l i z ing white or s i l ve r l e t t e r ing o r
emphasizing the world "POLO." (USPA Ex . 15 8-9. )
7 USPA's Double Horsemen Mark did not ex i s t pr ior to 1996. Brand
awareness of PRL's Polo Player Logo in 1984 was approximately 37%, 1984
Opinion a t **12-13, while today it i s 82 85%. (PRL Ex. 13.) In 1984 PRL had
only one fragrance product tha t displayed the Polo Player Logo, while today
it has at l eas t nine. (Tr. 36:8-37:21 (Marino); PRL Par t ie s Exs. 26 35.)
18
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 19 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 20/61
"in a manner t ha t i s l ike ly to cause confusion." (USPA Ex. 15
8-9.) ana lys i s of which symbols are d i s t i nc t i ve from
PRL/ S Polo Player logo-- tha t iS not in fr inging and whether the
"United States Polo Associat ion" name o r o ther name i s used in a
manner tha t " i s l ike to cause confusion" r equ i res appl ica t ion
Polaroid . In f inding a l ike l ihood confusion l the Court
duly notes t ha t the USPA pa r t i e s have v io la t ed the 1984 Order
insofar as it prohib i ted USPA/s adoption of in fr inging marks.
lNor are the PRL Par t i e s cla ims forec losed by a j u ry /s
f inding in 2006 t ha t while (1) USPA/s id Double Horsemen mark
inf r inged PRL/s Polo ayer Symbol (2) the s o l id Double
Horsemen mark with "USPA out l ine Double Horsemen mark I andI
out l ine Double Horsemen mark with "USPN' were not in fr inging
Inc. v.he context of the appare l market. PRL USA
Uni Polo Associat ion Inc ' l No. 99 Civ. 10199(GBD),~ ~ : = = = - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - -2 0 0 6 WL 18 81 744 (S . D . N . Y . 2 0 0 6) I a f f I d 52 0 F . 3 d 1 0 9 ( 2 d C r .
2008 ) Most sa l i en t l y , the marks a t i ssue here are employed in
the context f ragrances, not apparel . This case involves the
use of the Double Horsemen mark with the word mark "U. S. POLO
ASSN. 1890," not alone o r with "USPA" beneath . In cont ras t to
the 2006 apparel case, the dominant term in the word port ion of
USPA's mark here and t ha t which consumers are most l ike ly to
view as having trademark s igni f icance- i s "POLO." As the
19
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 20 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 21/61
Trademark Tr ia l and Appeal Board noted in re jec t USPA's
summary judgment motion regarding use of the marks a t i s sue
here fo r f ragrances and other products in Class 3 ,8 th i s i s sue
here "involves di f fe ren t t ransac t ional fac t s mater ia l to the
claim. Therefore the d i s t r i c t cour t s order [ in the apparel
l i t iga t ion] does not have preclus ive e f fec t on t h i s proceeding."
For same reasons, the apparelPRL Ex.
l i t iga t ion is not control l ing10
1. The Strength of the PRL Parties' Marks
The s t rength a mark re fers to " s tendency to
ident i goods sold under the mark as emanating from a
par t i cu l a r source." Loi 799 F.2d a t 873 ( in ternal- - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - -
quotat and c i t a t ions omit ted) . The concept of s t rength
8Class 3 includes : "Bleaching preparat ions and other substances fo r
laundry use; cleaning, pol ish ing, scouring and abras ive preparat ions; soaps;
perfumery, essent i a l o i l s , cosmetics, ha i r lo t ions ; den t i f r i ces . " 37 C.F.R.
§ 6.l.
9 The Trademark Tr i a l and Appeal Board also noted tha t the appare l
l i t i ga t ion addressed the Double Horsemen with and without "USPA" beneath it
fo r goods in In ternat ional Classes 14, 18, 25, and 28 ( respect ively , precious
metals /s tones ; l ea the r an d bags; clo th ing, footwear, headgear; games and
spor t a r t i c l e s , see 37 C.F.R. § 6.1) whereas the i ssue before i t , as here,involves the use of the Double Horsemen with "U. S. Polo Ass' n" above and
"1890" below fo r goods in Class 3. (PRL Ex . 110.)10 The use of the word "POLO" might addi t ional ly produce less confusion in
the apparel market, due to the grea te r use of a t t i r e to s ignal a f f i l i a t ion
with a spor ts team or associa t ion than the use of f ragrances , and possib le
di f ferences in consumers in the two markets . In some ins tances , the word
mark "POLO" and PRL's Polo Player Logo might also be considered more
arb i t r a ry with respect to fragrances than with respect to apparel , gIVIng
r i se to grea te r d i s t inc t iveness and s t rength in the PRL Par t i e s ' mark in th i s
context .
20
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 21 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 22/61
encompasses both " inherent d i s t inc t iveness" and "acquired
dis t inc t iveness . " See Brennan 's , 360 F.3d a t 130-31; Virgin
ses ,- - - - = ~ - - 335 F.3d a t 147-49.
By both measures, the PRL Par t i e s ' Polo PI Logo
and POLO marks are extremely s t rong. PRL has reg i s te red federa l
t rademarks fo r the Polo Player Logo, alone o r in combination
with words, names, symbols or devices, fo r f ragrances and
re la tedproducts , inc luding, among
others ,U.S. Reg. Nos.
1,212,060; 1,327,818; 2,922,574; 3,076,806; and 3 , 0 95 , 176 .
Therefore, t he i r marks are presumed to d i s t i nc t i ve . Lois
Sportswear, 799 F.2d a t 871. As discussed above, both the PRL
Polo Player Logo and "POLO" word mark are a rb i t r a ry with regard
to f ragrances and so the inherent dis t inc t iveness i s robus t .
Furthermore, a t t r i a l , the PRL Par t ie s demonstrated t ha t in the
l a s t ten years alone, L' Oreal has spen t more than one hundred
mil l ion dol adver t i s ing PRL men's f ragrances bear ing
Polo Player and "POLO" mark in the U.S. , wi th for ty mil l ion
dol la r s spent adver t i s ing POLO BLUE. (Tr. 39:15 25 (Marino) i PRL
Ex. 15.) s bols te r s i t s s t rength . See Morningside Group
Ltd. v. Morningside Capi ta l Group, L.L.C. , 182 F.3d 133, 139 (2d
Cir .1999); 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. v. 24 7 Tribeca Fi tness ,
447 F. Supp. 2d 266, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
21
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 22 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 23/61
At the same t ime, the awareness in the marketplace of
these marks i s commercial ly s t rong , with evidence a t t r i a l
demonstrat ing tha t surveyed men and women ages 18 to 60 repor t
between 82% and 85% awareness of PRL fragrances bearing the Polo
Player Logo and "POLO" brand, ranking it second in brand
awareness in the f ie lds of fashion and f ragrances. (Tr. 43:7-44;
50:1725; PRL Ex. 13 a t 3.) In the l a s t ten years , u.s. r e t a i l
sales of men's fragrances bearing the Polo Player Logo and
"POLO" mark werej u s t
over one bi l l ion dol la rs (Tr. 39:1-10;PRL
Par t i es Ex. 15), with one dol la r out of every $12 spent on men's
fragrances in the United Sta tes being spent on a PRL fragrance
bearing the Polo ayer Logo and "POLO" mark. (Tr. 42: 5 -11. )
Accordingly, the s t rength of the marks weighs s t rongly
in PRL Par t s ' favor.
2. The Degree o f S ~ i l a r i t y Between the Two Marks
"Of sa l ien t importance among the Polaroid factors i s
the's l a r i t y of the marks f t e s t , which at tempts to discern
whether the s imi la r i ty of the marks i s l ike ly to cause confusion
among potent customers." Louis Vit ton Mal le t i e r v. Burl ington
Coat Factory Warehouser 426 F.3d 532, 537 (2d Cir . 2005). An
assessment of the s imi la r i ty of marks examines the s imi la r i ty
22
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 23 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 24/61
between them in appearance sound I and meaning. See Grotr ian l
Helf fer ich Schulz Nachf. v. Ste & Sons 523
F.2d 1331 (2d Cir . 1975). When assess ing the s imi la r i ty of
marks I cour ts "analyze the mark [s I] overa l l impression on a
consumer I consider ing the context in which the marks are
displayed and the t o t a l i fac tors t ha t could cause confusion
among prospec t ive purchasers . 1I Louis Vit ton l 426 F.3d a t 537.
When the products being compared wi l l not be displayed
s ide-by-s ide in the marketplace as they wi l l not be here (Tr.
44:6 9; 44:21-45:3 (Marino) i Tr. 285:4 10; 288:14 289:4
(Cummings) ) I the appropr ia te ques t ion i s not "whether
di fferences are eas i ly discernable on simultaneous viewing but
whether they are l ike ly to be memorable enough to dispel
confusion on se r i a l viewing. II Louis Vuit tonl
426 F.3d. a t 538.
The analys is should consider " the products ' s izes ,
typefaces, and package designs and colors lf to determine whether
the overa l l impression in the re levant market context would lead
consumers to bel ieve t ha t the jun ior user t s product emanates
from the same source as products bear ing the senior user ' s mark.
Paco Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Perfumes t 234 F.3d 1262 (2d
Cir . 2000).
23
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 24 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 25/61
The s imi la r i ty between the PRL Par t ies ' and the USPA's
marks i s apparent . Both marks are s imilar in perspect ive -
containing a polo player on horseback, facing s l igh t ly to the
viewer 's l e f t , leaning forward with a polo malle t ra ised. Both
are monochrome logos tha t are s imilar in t he i r l eve l of
abs trac t ion. Both are displayed in embossed metal l ic or glossy
mater ia l - -wi th PRL's appearing in a number of colors including
s i lve r and gold, and USPA's appearing In a l igh t gold. (PRL Exs.
16, 22, 23, 25-35,USPA
Ex. 52.)
The primary di fference between the marks i s t the
PRL's logo contains one player , while USPA's conta ins two, one
with mallet ra ised and the other with malle t lowered, which
s ign i f i can t ly overlap. In USPA's mark, the front horseman i s
displayed sol id metal l ic ink, while the rear horseman i s only
outl ined, such that the background packaging shows through.
This gives the f ront -mal le t raised--horseman more visual
prominence, while the to rso of the rear horseman can be said to
fade in to the background. Both of USPA' s horsemen share the
same di rec t iona l perspect ive and over lap to a degree tha t it i s
d i f f i cu l t to discern i f there i s one horse or two. As counsel
for L'Oreal noted a t argument, USPA's Double Horsemen Mark
strongly resembles a composite of the PRL's Polo Player Logo
24
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 25 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 26/61
with the logo tha t USPA was enjoined from using in 1984 by Judge
Sand. Oral Argument Transcr ip t , 30 :18 -31 : 17 .
Except fo r the PRL Par t i e s ' Big Pony Collec t ion , the
proport ionate s ize of the logos as presented on the products i s
roughly s imi l a r . (PRL Exs. 16, 22, 23 , 25 -35 , USPA Ex. 52 . ) The
USPA's product bears a gold border tha t runs around the edge of
the f ron t panel of the fragrance box, as do some but not a l l of
thePRL
Par t i e s ' fragrance products .On both pa r t i e s '
products ,
except the PRL Par t ies ' Red White & Blue and Big Pony l i ne s , the
logos are s e t agains t a so l id color background.
The PRL Par t ies ' fragrances d isp lay the word mark
"POLO" prominently , except in the Big Pony Line. The USPA
Par t i e s ' product bears the "U. S . POLO ASSN." word mark arched
above the Double Horsemen logo and "1890" below. The typefaces
are in a s imi l a r s e r i f font , though severa l of PRL's fragrances
emphasize POLO in l a rger font as d i s t i nc t from RALPH LAUREN or
the reverse, while USPA's "U.S. POLO ASSN." i s presented in the
a l l the same s ized font .
The USPA Par t i e s mainta in tha t the USPA Marks have
been j ud ic i a l ly recognized as dis s imi la r from PRL's marks,
re ly ing on the 1984 Order, the 2006 jury t r i a l before Judge
25
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 26 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 27/61
Daniels , and the Second Circu i t ' s aff i rmance of t ha t decis ion .
This argument i s unpersuas No pr i o r decis ion addressed the
marks a t i s sue here in the fragrance market, and the s imil ty
of marks "analys is focuses on the par t i cu l a r indust ry where
marks compete. /I Brennan 's , 360 F. 3d 955.
Nor does th e add i t ion of "U.S./I "ASSN./I and "1980"
defeat a f inding of confusing s imi la r i ty . See North American
Inc. v. North American o fUS
Inc . No. 97
Civ. 3448 (RSW) , 1997 WL 316599, a t *6. I t i s general ru le
t ha t one may not "avoid a 1 ihood of confusion by the
addi t ion [to the use r ' s mark] of desc r ip t o r otherwise
subordinate matter ." Bellbrook es , Inc. v . Hawthorn-
Mellody Farms Dairy, Inc . , 253 F.2d 431, 432-33 (C.C.P.A. 1958)
("Vita-Slim" confusingly s imi la r to "Slim"). USPA's addi t ion of
the words "U.S" "ASSN." and "1890" does not change emphasis
on "POLO" as the operat ive par t th e word mark, or the
l ike l ihood of confusion when used in conjunct ion with the Double
Horsemen logo. See
Inc . , 470 F.2d 689, 692 (2d Cir . 1972) (addi t ion of "by Bradley"
did not prevent confusion between "Cross" pens and "LaCross by
Bradl pens) i 544 F. Supp. 2d 302, 311
(S. D. N. Y. 2008) ( "F i r s t Ladies o f Chic" confusingly s la r to
"Chic") i Am. Express Co. v. Am. Express Limousine Serv . , 772 F.
26
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 27 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 28/61
Supp. 729, 733 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (addit ion of "Limousine Services"
to "American Express" mark enhanced ra ther than dispel
confusion) . Indeed, USPA discla imed the use of "U. S." t "ASSN."
and "1890" in trademark appl ica t ion , fur the r underscoring
tha t ne i the r can properly be regarded as the pr inc ipa l or
dominant par t of t he i r mark. See Application Ser ia l Nos.
77/738,105 and 77/760,071.
Considering the t o t a l i t y of fac tors tha t could cause
confusion, the di fferences between the pa r t i e s ' marks are
unl ikely to be memorable enough to dispe l confusion. The
s imi la r i ty of the marks subs tan t i a l ly increases the l ikel ihood
of confusion between the USPA Par t i e s ' and PRL Par t i es '
products .
3. The Proximity o f the Products
This fac tor "concerns whether and to what extent the
two products compete with each other ." Cadbury Beverages Inc. v.
Cott 73 F.3d 474, 480 (2d. 1996) . In assessing the-----" '-. ,
proximity of the par t s ' products , courts "look to the nature
of the products themselves and the s t ruc ture of the relevant
market. Among the cons idera t ions germane to the s t ructure of
the market are the c lass of customers to whom goods are
27
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 28 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 29/61
sold, the manner in which the products are adver t ised , and the
channels through which the goods are so ld . II rd . (c i ta t ions and
in te rna l quota t ions omit ted) . "[T]he the secondary use r l s
goods are to those the consumer has seen marketed under the
pr io r use r ' s brand, the more l ike ly the consumer wil l
mistakenly assume a common source." - - ' - - = : . . = . . . . . < - = . . : - - ' - - = - - ' - - = ~ . . . . . . . . . A i . . . - = - " - = - ' 3 3 5 F. 3 d
a t 150 (c i t Cadbury Beverages, 73 F.3d a t 480-81) .
Both par t i e s ' products are men's TheUSPA
Par t ies urge t ha t they and the PRL Par t are not in
compet i t ive proximity due to product pr ic ing d i t , actual
and in tended s of t rade , and diverse c l i en t e l e .
Speci f ica l ly , the USPA Par t ie s contend t ha t i r fragrance
products wil l so ld primari ly in mid- t ier s tores such as
Sears , Kohl 's , and J .C. Penney and a t a po in t of
approximately $25, while USPA argues t ha t PRL f s e l l o n
average fo r between $50 and $70 and fo r the most in high-
end s to res such as Bloomingdales and Saks.
However, test imony of Les l ie Marino, L' , s
General Manager, Des Fragrance Divis ion , es tab l i shed tha t
fragrances displaying PRL Par t i es ' Polo Player Logo and POLO
mark are sold in department s tores as wel l as spec ia l ty s tores ,
28
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 29 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 30/61
cosmetic s to res , and over the i n t e rne t .I I (Tr. 44:6 45:1; 46:17
24. ) David Cummings, CEO of Proper t ies , t e s t i f t ha t the mid-
t i e r s to res where USPA in t to s e l l i t s fragrance so s e l l
over the I n t e r ne t . (Tr. 209:22-210:2; 285:22-25 . ) ' Accordingly,
the pa r t i e s may be d i rec t compet i t ion . Mr. Cummings
acknowledged the l i cense agreement between the USPA Par t i e s
and t h e i r l i censee does not re s c t the channels of
d i s t r ibu t ion of i t s f ragrance product , and agreed t ha t
i s nothing to preven t d i s t r ibu t ion the USPA Par t i e s '
fragrance in the same channels used by the PRL Par t i es . (Tr.
285:4-10.)
While USPA contends it wi l l s e l l i t s fragrances a t
lower pr ice-po s than those PRL, th i s di f fe rence i s not so
vas t as to place a I competi t dis tance between the
companies ' produc ts . USPA's re l iance on Louis Vit ton Malle t ie r
v . Burl Coat Warehouse No. 04-civ- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ . ,2644 (RMB) , 2006 WL 1424381, a t *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) , i s
unavai l ing , as t ha t cour t found adequate di f fe rence between
defendant ' s handbags which d fo r $29.98, and p l a i n t i f f ' s ,
which so ld for $360 to $3,950. Nor i s Estee Lauder Inc . v. The
Inc . , 108 F. Supp. 1503 (2d Cir . 1997) of help to USPA.--" '- ' - -----
Other PRL Par t ies ' are sold in mid- t ie r s to re s such asKohl 's an d J .e . Penney. (Tr. 44:21-45:3.)
29
I I
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 30 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 31/61
Estee Lauder Court found no suppor t fo r 1 ihood of
confusion where produc ts were d in "mutual ly excl u s i ve types
s tores" and p l a i n t i f f ' s produc ts were pr iced more than 10 to
20 t imes more per ounce, id . a t 1511-12, ne i the r of which i s the
case here .
In cons ide ra t ion of fac to rs , the Court f inds the
produc ts to be compet i t ive ly proximate . "Moreover,
competi t ive proximity must be measured with re fe rence to the
f i r s t tw o Polaro id fac to rs , " Mobil O il Corp. v. Pegasus
Petroleum . , 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir . 1987). The s ingu la r
s t rength PRL's marks "demands t ha t [they] be given broad
pro tec t ion agains t in f r inge rs , " i d . , and the grea t s imi l ty
between two marks fu r the r the l ike l ihood t ha t a
consumer wi l l confuse USPA with PRL.
4. The Likelihood that the PRL Parties wi l l Bridge the Gap
This fac to r concerns th e 1 ihood t h a t sen io r use r
t ha t i s not d i r e c t compet i t ion wi th a j un io r user a t th e t ime
a s u i t i s brought wi l l l a t e r expand th e scope of i t s business so
as to en te r jun io r use r ' s market. See Arrow Fas tener Co. v.
Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384, 397 (2d r . 1995). Because the
pa r t i e s in t h i s case are a l ready competi t ly proximate , there
30
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 31 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 32/61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 33/61
2d a t 318; Pf ize r , 652 F. Supp. 2d a t 523 ("The absence of proof
of ac tua l confusion i s not f a t a l to a f inding of l ike l ihood [of
confusion] , par t i cu lar ly where, as here , the jun ior mark has
been in the marketplace for a r e l a t i ve ly shor t per iod of t ime.")
(quotat ion marks omitted) .
The USPA Par t i e s argue t ha t the PRL Par t ie s proffered
no evidence of ac tua l confusion in the apparel indus t ry and t ha t
the par t i e s ' co-exis tence in the apparel indus t ry weighs agains t
a showing of a l ike l ihood of confusion wi th regard to
f ragrances. This argument i s unconvincing fo r tw o reasons .
Fi r s t , insuf f i c i en t evidence regarding whether o r not ac tua l
confusion exi s t s in the apparel indus t ry was presented a t t r i a l
fo r the Court to adequately weigh i t s po ten t i a l a f fec t . Second,
there has been no co exis tence of f ragrances without confusion
a fac t , which i f t rue , would suppor t USPA's claim. Lack of
confusion as to apparel mayo r may not be i nd ica t ive of lack of
confusion as to f ragrances.
Consumer surveys can provide another form of evidence
of the l ike l ihood of confusion. See . ,----- ' ' - - --= '- Me t L i . f ~ _ e - , - , _ _I__n_c,,--._v_.
i t an Nat ' l Bank, 388 F. Supp. 2d 223, 232 (S.D.N.Y.
2005) ("a survey as to the potent ia l consumer confusion may be
weighed when consider ing the l ike l ihood of confusion") (c i t ing
32
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 33 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 34/61
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 259
(2d Cir . 1987 ) ) i Jordache Enterpr i ses Inc. v. Levi Strauss &
Co., 841 F. Supp. 5061
518 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Evidence of actual
confusion consis ts of (1) anecdotal evidence of confused
consumers in the marketplacei and (2 ) consumer survey
evidence")
Here, the par t i e s each conducted surveys . L 'Oreal
engaged George Mantis, who conducted two surveys . Mant is /s
f i r s t survey was a nat ional mall in te rcept conducted in each of
the nine Census d i s t r i c t s with 324 ind iv iduals who had a s ta ted
intent ion to purchase a men/s fragrance product in the next s ix
months. Mantis f i r s t survey used a rep l i ca of the USPA
lPar t ies fragrance as shown in Exhibi t B of the USPA/s
declara tory judgment complaint . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 150-51.) The
contro l group was shown a Mustang Blue cologne package and
product . Id . a t 152-53. That cologne comes in metal l ic blue box
and displays a horse in p ro f i l e se t agains t a black and s i lve r
grate with "MUSTANG BLUE" below. Survey noise was est imated
based on the proport ion of survey respondents who associa ted the
contro l sample with PRL (PRL Ex. 9 a t 4), and subt rac ted from
the reported confusion leve ls to produce a "net confusion"
f igure.
l
33
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 34 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 35/61
Mant i s ' second survey fol lowed th e same methodology,
but wi th tw o d i f f e r e n t t e s t samples , due to USPA's s t i p u l a t ed
change in th e co lo r to be used fo r t h e i r packag ing . The survey
involved over 500 i n d i v i d u a l s drawn from th e nine census
d i s t r i c t s . (Tr. 86 : 15 -1 7) . Both t e s t samples in th e second
Mant i s ' survey disp layed th e Double Horsemen Trademark, one
bear ing "U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and \\1890" below (PRL Ex.
10 Ex. E) i and th e o t h e r bear ing \\USPA" below (PRL Ex. 10 Ex.
E) . Both t e s t marks appeared on beige packaging . The same
Mustang Blue cologne and packaging was used as the c o n t ro l . (PRL
Ex . 10 Ex. G.)
Mant is ' f i r s t survey found 32.4% g ro s s confus ion and
4.6% confus ion in th e co n t ro l group, r e s u l t i n g i n a n e t
confusion l eve l o f 27.8%. This rep re sen t s th e con t ro l l ed
p o r t i o n o f those who b e l i ev ed th e f ragrance b ea r in g th e Double
Horsemen Mark wi th \\U. S. POLO ASSN." arched above and \\1890"
below on blue packaging was p u t ou t by, connec ted to , o r
au th o r i zed by Polo Ralph Lauren . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 2 .)
The second Mant is survey found g ro s s confus ion l ev e l s
o f 25.9% fo r th e use of USPA's Double Horsemen Trademark
combinat ion wi th \\U.S. POLO ASSN." above and \\1890" below, on a
be ige background, as wel l as 21.2% g ro s s confus ion fo r th e use
34
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 35 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 36/61
o f th e Double Horsemen in combinat ion with "US PA'l below I on a
be ige background. (PRL Ex. 10 a t 6 .) Mantis found 3.4% confus ion
fo r th e Mustang c o n t r o l product . This eq u a te s to 22.5% n e t
confusion fo r th e "U . S. POLO ASSN. II t e s t product and 17.8% n e t
confusion fo r the "US PA'l t e s t product .
The USPA P ar t i e s presen t ed a survey conducted by Dr.
Myron Hel fgo t t l which involved in te rv iews with 1 / 000 re sponden t s
in shopping mal ls ten geograph i ca l l y d i spe r sed met ropol i t an
a reas . (USPA Ex. 48. ) The sample was screened to cons i s t of
men and women between th e ages of 18 and 35 who repor ted t h a t
they a re l i k e l y to purchase a menl s f ragrance produc t cos t i ng
$20 to $30 in th e nex t s ix months. In each in te rv iew l
respondents were shown a bo t t l e and ca r ton fo r a men's
f ragrance , which they were t o ld s e l l s fo r $24.99.
The Hel fgo t t survey t e s t ed t h ree f ragrance packages
a l l se t on beige packaging with gold l e t t e r i n g : (1 ) th e Double
Horsemen logo with "USPAII benea th I (2) th e Double Horsemen logo
wi th "U.S. POLO ASSN. I I beneath l and (3) the Double Horsemen logo
with "U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and "1890 11 below. Hel fgo t t
used two c o n t ro l s . One spor t ed i d e n t i c a l packaging and gold in k
to the t h ree t e s t ed f ragrances , excep t i n s t ead of th e Double
Horsemen logol th e con t ro l f ea t u red USPA's horsehead mark l which
35
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 36 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 37/61
consis t s of a pic ture of a horse ' s head in an oval shape formed
by a s ty l ized horseshoe, with "U.S. POLO" arched above. The
second contro l i s a fragrance which presents a gold embossed
polo player as t r ide a horse, facing di rec t ly to the viewer ' s
r ight , with "Beverly Hills" arched above and "Polo Club" below.
The logo and word mark are in gold and se t in a red box. The
packaging i s black.
The Helfgott survey found 28% gross confusion with the
Double Horsemen logo with "USPA" beneath; 27% gross confusion
with the Double Horsemen logo with "U.S. POLO ASSN." beneath;
and 25.5% gross confusion with the Double Horsemen logo with
"U.S. POLO ASSN." arched above and "1890" below. (USPA Ex. 48
a t 2.) The survey found 28.5% confusion with the USPA's
horsehead mark cont ro l and 32% confusion with the Beverly Hil l s
Polo Club cont ro l . Id . The Helfgot t survey concluded tha t
because confusion leve ls for the t e s t products were s imi la r to
or lower than confusion leve ls provoked by the cont ro ls , net
confusion was zero for a l l t e s t products and "the source of the
measured t e s t product confusion was something other than
presence of the double horsemen i l lu s t ra t ion . " (USPA Ex. 48 a t
13. ) Because the l evel of confusion associa ted with the three
t e s t products did not exceed the l eve l of confusion caused by
36
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 37 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 38/61
the Beverly Hil l s Polo Club control , Helfgot t concluded tha t
"[ t ]here i s not res idual confusion." Id . a t 14.)
The ie s dispute the methodology of each other ' s
surveys. i f i c a l ly , the PRL Par t ie s asse r t tha t Dr.
Helfgot t ' s f survey quest ion, which s ta ted tha t respondents
were being shown a fragrance tha t cos ts $24.99 and l imi ted
respondents to what "organization" put out the product , id . a t
8 , l ike ly fected the way tha t those surveyed responded. In
addi t ion, the PRL Par t ie s contend tha t Hel fgot t ' s screening
method, which l imi ted respondents to those with the in ten t to
purchase a fragrance in the $20 to $30 ce range,
preconditioned respondents by referencing pr ice . Dr. Hel fgot t
acknowledged a t t r i a l tha t s t ipping off respondents to a
pr ice could have responses (Tr. 401:17-402:7
(He l fgot t» , and tha t the proper sample in a forward looking
confusion survey consis ts those l ike ly to purchase in the
product category, not only prospect ive purchasers of one
company's products. (Tr. 405:1-19 (Helfgot t ) . ) The Helfgott
s tudy 's screening for those in tending to purchase a men's
frangrance in the $20-$30 rangei the inc lus ion of cos t
Hel t' s f i r s t quest ioni and tha t the s tudy ' s f i r s t quest ion
limi survey responses to "organizat ion", a l l precondit ioned
h is survey respondents.
37
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 38 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 39/61
The PRL P ar t i e s a lso c r i t i c i z e th e Hel fgo t t s tudy on
th e bas i s t h a t B i l l Ba r t l e t t o f Suburban was r e sp o n s i b l e fo r
reading the q u es t i o n n a i r e s and decid ing how each of th e
responses on those q u es t i o n n a i r e s should be coded i.e., confused
o r not confused (Tr. 375 :14 -16 i 433:4-7 (H e l fg o t t » , and Dr.
Hel fgo t t conceded t h a t he p e r so n a l l y d i d not review a l l th e
i onna i re s . (Tr. 432:23 433:3 fgot t ) .) However, Dr.
Hel fgo t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d id scuss how to code c e r t a i n o f
th esurvey
responses Mr.Ba r t l e t t deemed
prob lemat icand
read to
him over t e lephone , and th e Court c re d i t s t h a t t e s t imony .
(Tr. 406:25-407:6 , 407:16 22 (He l fgo t t ) . ) More p ro b l ema t i ca l l y ,
th e repor t t h a t Dr. Hel fgo t t prepared d id not con ta in a
"verbat im" sec t ion t h a t s e t o u t th e re sponses o f in terview
respondents recorded on the q u es t i o n n a i r e s by th e in te rv iewers
dur ing th e survey in te rv iews, such t h a t the Cour t i s not ab le to
i ndependent ly determine whether th e re sponses were proper ly
c l a s s i f i e d .
The most s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r in th e Hel fgo t t s tudy was
its choice o f co n t ro l v a r i ab l e s . Wi thou t a proper con t ro l ,
t h e re i s no benchmark fo r de te rmin ing whether a l i ke l ihood o f
confus ion es t imate i s s i g n i f i c a n t o r merely r e f l e c t s f laws in
th e survey methodology. "In des ign ing a con t ro l group s tudy I
ex p er t should se l e c t a s t imulus fo r th e con t ro l group t h a t
38
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 39 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 40/61
shares as many cha rac t e r i s t i c s with the cont ro l group as
poss ib le , with the key except ion of the charac te r i s t ic whose
inf luence i s being assessed ." J . Jacoby, "Experimental Design
and the Select ion of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive
Advert is ing Surveys," 92 Trademark Rep. 890, 920 (2002) (quoting
the Federal Judic ia l Center ' s Reference Manual on Scien t i f i c
Evidence) Here, Helfgot t ' s cont ro ls were improper in tha t they
included the very elements being assessed, 13 namely, the word
mark "POLO" and, in the case of the Beverly Hil l s Polo Club
cont ro l , also a mounted polo player image.
The high levels of confusion e l i c i t ed by Dr.
Helfgot t ' s cont ro ls throw the s tudy ' s use in to fur ther doubt.
(USPA Par t ies Ex. 48 (28.5% for Horse Head, 32% fo r Beverly
Hil l s Polo Club).) See JacobYI 92 Trademark Reporter 890 1 931
32 ("[I]n the best of a l l possible worlds, it would not be
desi rable for a control to yie ld confusion es t imates tha t
exceeded 10%. I f did, the cont ro l i t s e l f would begin to reach
an act ionable l evel of confusion and i t s u t i l i t y as a contro l
thereby compromised."). Dr. Helfgot t was not in subs tant ia l
disagreement. He t e s t i f i ed tha t the Beverly Hil l s Polo Club
sample rea l ly did not ac t as a control . (Tr. 436:21 437:7
13(See L ' O r e a l ' s co u n te r c l a ims 36, 46, 47; PRL Par t i e s Ex. 14; Docket
Entry 52 a t 2, 10.)
39
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 40 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 41/61
14
fgott) .14) The USPA Par t ie s argue tha t surveys using contro ls
tha t generate confusion l evels in excess of 20% have been used
and accepted. However, those cont s were used surveys
di f fe ren t from those here , in which survey respondents were
shown both the p la in t i f f ' s product and the defendant ' s product
bearing the mark. See Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v . Victor i a ' s Secret
618 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir .
2010) (s ide-by-side product comparison); Edison Bros. Stores ,
Inc. v . Cosmair, Inc . , 651 F. Supp. 1547, 1559 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
(same) . Studies using tha t methodology genera l ly produce higher
l evels confusion. See Phyl l i s J . Welter , TRADEMARK SURVEYS §
6.01[4] ease #6, June 1999). The r e su l t s of those s tudies
therefore cannot be proper ly compared with s tud ies here .
Dr. Helfgot t ' s survey i s fur the r l imi ted in i t s
u t i l i t y because it permit ted respondents to "correc t for
confusion" by reading the l abe l back to the in terv iewer , and
In re levant par t the t r anscr ip t reads:Q. And in your repor t you referred to tha t contro l as a benchmark,
i s n ' t tha t r ight?
A. Yes.
Q. You can look a t it.
A. Yes, yes, yes.Q. But you don ' t - - but the r epor t doesn ' t descr ibe what the benchmark
was, r ight? I mean, what was the measurement tha t const i tu ted thebenchmark?
A. I t was a l ikel ihood of confusion response.Q . So you would agree with me tha t it wasn ' t measuring what survey
exper ts cal led background noise?A. No, . I agree with tha t .
(Tr. 436:21 437:7 (Helfgot t ) . )
40
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 41 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 42/61
allowed respondents to view the t e s t samples for 8 10 minutes
while being quest ioned. (Tr. 387:23 388:1; 388:2-20; 390:16
391:12 (Helfgot t ) . ) In sum, due to i t s s ign i f i can t drawbacks,
the Court gives the Helfgott study no weight.
With regard to the Mantis surveys, the USPA Par t ies
contend tha t Mantis ' f i r s t survey question was leading. That
question asked "who or what individual , company or organizat ion
makes or puts out th is product?" a f te r respondents wereshown
USPA's packaging and product . (PRL Ex. 9 a t 5.) That form and
sequence of questioning has become s tandard methodology in
trademark infringement surveys, however, following the
methodology used in _ U ~ n ~ i ~ o ~ n__ ~ C ~ a _ r ~ b ~ l ~ · d _ e ~ __ ~ ~ _ . ~ v _ . __E_v ~ e ~ r ~ __ ~ __ I ~ n ~ c ~ . , 531
F.2d 366 (7th r . 1976) ce r t . denied, 429 U.S. 830 (1976)
(approving what i s now known as the "Ever-Readyfl tes t ) .
USPA's rel iance on Smith v. Wal Mart Stores Inc. 537 F. Supp.
2d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2008), i s misplac There, the survey
question required the respondent to answer "which company or
s tore do you th ink puts out th i s shi r t?" despi te the fac t tha t
the defendant was an ind iv idual . Omitting a poss ib le choice
( there, " indiv idual ff), where it was not only re levant but also
was the choice being t e s ted , was found to be inappropriate .
Here, Mantis included, not omit t a l l reasonable choices, and
allowed the respondent to provide his /her genuine answer. The
41
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 42 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 43/61
f i r s t Mantis survey quest ion therefore was not misleading. This
f inding i s confirmed by the a t ive ly s imi la r levels of gross
confusion found by both Mantis and Helfgot t ' s surveys .
The USPA Par t i es ' c r i t i c i sms tha t the Mantis study d id
not screen fo r pr ice are meri t l e ss . USPA was not marketing the
product a t the time and i t s price was unknown. (Tr. 89: 7 15
(Mantis) . ) As Dr. Helfgot t pr inc ipa l ly acknowledged (Tr. 405:1
25 (Helfgot t ) ) , it wasproper
fo rMantis not
toscreen
fo r
pr ice .
The USPA Par t ie s addi t iona l ly dispute the
appropr ia teness the Mantis s tudy ' s cont ro l , arguing t ha t the
Mustang mark was too famous to ac t as a proper cont ro l .
However, the Mantis contro l repl ica ted market condi t ions in so
fa r as the Mustang product i s cur ren t ly on the market, did not
conta in any of the elements being assessed, provided the survey
respondent the opportuni ty fo r guessing, contained a symbol of a
horse and, with respect to the f i r s t survey, was the same co lo r
as the t e s t sample. While the Mantis survey ' s contro l could
have perhaps shared more fea tures with the t e s t product in terms
of the shape and mater ia l of the fragrance box, the Court gives
some weight to i t s r e su l t s .
42
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 43 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 44/61
The confusion leve ls ascer ta ined by the Mantis surveys
have been accepted as indica t ive of l ike l ihood of confusion by
other courts in th i s Circui t . See Kraft General Foods, Inc, v.
~ l l i e d Old English, Inc . , 831 F. Supp. 123, 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
(discussing a mall in tercept survey tha t indica ted net confusion
of twenty-six percent (26% ) and f inding the "extreme
demonstrat ion of confusion evidenced by the survey demonstrates
Kraft ' s l ike l ihood of success on the meri ts , as even a
substant ia l ly l esser showing of confusion would support Kraf t ' s
motion fo r a preliminary in junct ion") . See also Empressa Cubana
Del Tabaco v. 70 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1650 (S.D.N.Y.
2004), rev 'd on other 399 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. 2005)
(confusion ra te of 15% 21% indica tes a l ikel ihood of
confusion) ; Energybrands, Inc. v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc . ,
No. 02 CIV. 3227 (JSR), 2002 WL 826814 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2002)
(17% net confusion warranted grant of prel iminary injunction) ;
Volkswagen Ast iengese l l schaf t v. Uptown Motors, No. 91 Civ. 3447
(DLC) 1995 WL 605605 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1995) (two surveys
showing 17.2% and 15.8% net confusion j us t i f i ed grant of
injunction) .
The Mantis surveys are appropria te ly suggest ive of
actual confusion. Accordingly, t h i s fac tor weighs in the PRL
Par t i es ' favor.
43
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 44 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 45/61
6. USPA's Intent in Adoptinq I ts Mark
"Courts and commentators who have considered the
quest ion equate a lack of good fa i th with the subsequent use r ' s
in tent to t rade on the good wi l l of the trademark holder by
creat ing confusion as to source o r sponsorship." EMI Catalogue
Partnership v. Hil l , Holl iday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc . , 228
F.3d 56, 67 (2d Cir . 2000) (c i ta t ions omitted) (noting inquiry
i s "whether defendant in adopting i t s mark in tended to
capi ta l i ze on p la in t i f f ' s good wi l l " ) . "Bad fa i th genera l ly
refers to an at tempt by a jun ior user of a mark to exp lo i t the
good wil l and reputa t ion of a senior user by adopting the mark
with the in ten t to sow confusion between the tw o companies'
products ." Starbucks v. Wolfe's Coffee Inc . , 588 F.3d
97 (2d Cir . 2009) (quoting Sta r Indust es , 412 F.3d a t 388).
Under th i s fac tor , "the 'only re levant in ten t i s in ten t to
confuse . ' " Id . (quoting 4 McCarthy on Trademarks § 23.113).
Bad fa i th can be found where pr i o r knowledge of the
senior use r ' s mark or t rade dress i s accompanied by s imi l a r i t i e s
so strong tha t it seems pla in tha t de l ibe ra te copying has
occurred. Paddington Corp. v. Att ik i Imps. & Di s t r i b . , Inc . , 996
F.2d 577, 587 (2d Cir . 1993) ("In tent ional copying, of course,
does not require ident ica l copying. Where the copier references
44
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 45 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 46/61
the pr l o r dress in es tabl i sh ing her des ign wi th apparent aim
of securing the customers of the o ther on confusion,
i n t en t iona l copying may be found.") .
Here, USPA was undoubtedly ly fami l iar with the PRL
Par t ie s ' marks and t rade dress , extens i ve his tory of
t rademark l i t iga t ion between the USPA's in ten t to
capi ta l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and goodwill can be i n fe r red from
i t sdecis ion to
adopt a mark i s so s t r ik inglys imi la r to
the PRL Polo Player Logo and t ly employ the same co lo r and
s imi la r t rade dress to PRL's most popular
fragrance l ine sold under o Player Logo. (Tr. 55: 10 -21
(Marino) i PRL Par t ie s Exs. 16 and 27.) The explana t ion given by
USPA's Pres ident , Mr. Cummings, to expla in i t s i n i t i a l adoption
of s imi la r blue t rade s i s not persuas ive . Cummings
t e s t i f i ed tha t blue packaging was used because USPA had adopted
blue t rade dress , on the inseam and waistband l abe l s and
hangtags a r t i c in i t s appare l l i ne s , and USPA
bel ieved t ha t using blue packaging would be t t e r enable consumers
to ident i fy product as USPA's. (Tr. 215:8-218:2 (Cummings)).
Notably, USPA could have avoided t h i s s i tua t ion
e n t i by choosing a logo tha t depic ts a polo in a
posi t ion and from a perspect ive t ha t d if from Polo
45
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 46 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 47/61
Player Logo with a more c lear ly d i s t inc t form of packaging ( ~ . g .
i n i t i a l l y u t i l i z ing a di f fe ren t color , non metal l ic ink, and
with no th in matching border edging). But it chose not to do
so. That the USPA Par t ie s and t he i r l i censee did not have any
exper t i se in purveying f ragrances or develop a s t ra teg ic
business plan, a budget , or su f f i c i en t funding for adver t i s ingi
and tha t they worked with a l i censee which would not disc lose
i t s name because i t was concerned, as USPA was aware, tha t it
might be dragged in toa
lawsuit with Ralph Laruen and had been
unable to f ind sublicensees due to th rea t of a t rademark act ion
(Tr. 270: 22-277: 10 (Cummings)) fur the r ind ica tes tha t the USPA
Par t ie s intended to capi t a l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and goodwil l -
ins tead of bui lding t he i r own. Therefore, the Court f inds tha t
USPA adopted i t s mark with the in ten t ion of capi t a l i z ing on
PRL's reputa t ion and goodwill . ls
7. The Quality o f USPA's product
Under the seventh Polaroid fac tor ca l l s fo r an
examination of the qual i ty of USPA's f ragrance product . The
15 This i s d i s t i nc t from a f ind ing tha t USPA knowingly acted unlawfully a t
l eas t with regard to USPA's adoption of the Double Horsemen mark on
f ragrances . Whether or not the USPA par t i es acted in re l iance on the 1984
Order and 2006 apparel l i t iga t ion in adopting the Double Horsemen with regard
to f ragrances , th i s i s not in tension with the Cour t ' s f inding tha t USPA
adopted the mark, and fo r fragrances i n i t i a l l y with t rade dress tha t i s
s t r ik ingly s imilar to the POLO BLUE l ine , with the in ten t ion of cap i ta l iz ing
on PRL's reputa t ion , goodwil l , and any confusion between i t s and the PRL's
product.
46
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 47 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 48/61
Court makes no f indings on t h i s i s sue , as n e i t h e r USPA nor th e
PRL Pa r t i e s pro f fe red evidence in t h i s r eg a rd , and the USPA
Pa r t i e s ' produc t was pu l l ed from th e market near ly immedia te ly
a f t e r being in t roduced .
However, it i s th e l o s s of con t ro l over q u a l i t y t h a t
i s th e r e a l gravamen of t h i s f a c t o r , Accordingly , "a sen io r
u s e r may sue t o p r o t e c t h i s r epu ta t i on even where th e
i n f r i n g e r f s goods a re o f top q u a l i t Y , 1/ _M_o_b_l_'l__O_i_l_ _C_o_r",-p_,_ _v_,
Petroleum . , 818 F.2d 254, 259, 260 (2d Cir . 1987) .
A sen io r use r , " is no t requi red to pu t its r epu ta t i on in [a
j u n i o r users ] hands , no m at te r how capable those hands may be . 1/
Id . {quoting - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - , 165 N.Y.S.2d 825,
826 (Sup. C t. 1957) ) . At th e same t ime, cour t s in t h i s C i r c u i t
have found t h a t s i m i l a r i t y in th e q u a l i t y th e produc ts may
c r e a t e an even g r e a t e r l i ke l ihood of confus ion as to source
inasmuch as consumers may expec t produc ts o f s i m i l a r q u a l i t y to
emanate from the same source . See Tommy H i l f i g e r~ - ~ ~ - - - ~ Inc . v . Na ture Labs LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410, 420
(S.D.N.Y. 2002) (d i scuss ing the two ways which q u a l i t y of the
j u n i o r u s e r ' s product has been analyzed) i Paco Spor t , Ltd. v .
Paco Rabanne Parfums, 86 F. Supp. 2d 305, 325-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(same) i Jordache Inc . 841 F. Supp. 506 1 520- - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - -(S. D. N. Y . 1993) {s t a t i ng t h a t because p a r t i e s both manufacture
47
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 48 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 49/61
qual i ty apparel , the senior user need not be concerned about
reputa t ional harm due to tarnishment , but tha t the equivalent
qual i ty of the products "supports the inference tha t they
emanate from the same source") .
Thus, while th i s fac tor i s neutra l , e i the r reasoning
might addi t ional ly support the PRL Par t ies ' claims.
8. The Sophist icat ion o f Fragrance Buyers
"Generally, the more sophis t ica ted and careful the
average consumer of a product i s , the l ess l ike ly it i s tha t
s imi l a r i t i e s in trademarks wil l resu l t in confusion
concerning the source or sponsorship of the product . II Bris to l
Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc . , 973 F.2d 1033, 1046 (2d
Cir. 1992). Although it may be tha t purchasers of expensive
fragrances are typical ly found to be somewhat sophis t ica ted
consumers, see e . . , Nina Ricci , S.A.R.L. v. Gemcraft Ltd . , 612
F. Supp. 1520, 1529 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), there i s nothing in the
record to indica te tha t purchasers of low- to mid-priced
fragrances a t low- to mid-range r e t a i l e r s are comparably
sophis t icated. The USPA Part ies s ta te that they wil l s e l l the i r
apparel and other products a t Sears and s imi lar mid- t ie r
merchandisers a t pr ice points below those of the PRL Par t i es .
48
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 49 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 50/61
In so fa r as t h i s w i l l be the case , p ro sp ec t i v e p u rch ase r s of
th e USPA P a r t i e s ' products may nonethe less be confused in to
bel ieving t h a t USPA's product i s an au thor ized "down market II
vers ion o r ex tens ion of th e PRL P a r t i e s ' f ragrance p roducts , o r
t h a t USPA and the PRL P ar t i e s are otherwise a f f i l i a t e d . See
Nikon Inc . v . Ikon Corp. , 987 F. 2d 91, 95 (a f f i rming d i s t r i c t
c our t ' s f inding t h a t consumers o f lower-end products were l e s s
soph i s t i ca t ed and "could be confused about an a f f i l i a t i o n
between the p roduct s . II) •
"Where a second-comer ac t s in bad f a i t h and
i n t en t i o n a l l y cop ies a t rademark o r t r ade d re s s , a presumpt ion
a r i s e s t h a t the cop ier has succeeded in caus ing confus ion . II
Paddington Corp. , 996 F.2d a t 586 87 ( c i t ing ~ W . - = a : : . = r : : . = n _ e _ r_ _ _ _ _ _ __n_c_.
v . American Broadcast ing Cos . , 720 F.2d 231, 246 47 (2 d
Cir.1983) i Per fec t F i t Indus t r i es , Inc . v . Acme Qui l t ing Co. ,
In c . , 618 F.2d 950, 954 (2 d Ci r . 1980) i Bris to l -Myers Squibb,
973 F.2d a t 1044-45; Charles of the Ri tz Group Ltd. v. Qual i ty
King Dis t r ibu to r s , In c . , 832 F.2d 1317, 1322 (2d Cir . 1987)) .
This f ac to r t he re fo re cu t s in th ePRL
Pa r t i e s ' favor .
Weighing the Fac to rs
49
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 50 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 51/61
Weighing the var ious Polaroid fac tors and based on the
evidence presented a t t r i a l the Court f inds tha t USPA/s use of
Double Horsemen Mark along wi th the word mark "U. S . POLO
ASSN. II in the context of men 1 s f ragrances crea tes a s trong
ll ikel ihood of confusion with the PRL Par t ie s products . The
marks are so s imi la r tha t it i s l ike ly tha t consumers would be
confused 1 whether by bel ieving PRL had author i zed a down
market product o r by confusing products out
I I . State Law C l a ~ s
\\ [T] standards Sect ion 43(a} claims the
Lanham Act and unfa i r compet i t ion claims under New York Law are
almost ind is t inguishable . II Tri - Star P ic tures Inc. v. Unger 1 14
F. Supp. 2d 339 1 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Genesee Brewing
124 F.3d a t 149; Bros. - Barnum &
Inc. v . B.E. Windows 1 937 F. Supp. 204 , 208 - 0 9 (S.D.N.Y.
1996) . only addi t ional element t ha t must be shown to
es tab l i sh a claim fo r i r compet i t ion under the common law i s
bad fa i th . Gir l Scouts v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ ' g Group,
Inc . , 808 F. Supp. 1112, 1131 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)1 a f f ' d , 996 F.2d
1477 (2 d Cir . 1993) ("Under New York law, common law unfa i r
competi t ion claims close ly resemble Lanham Act claims except
i n so fa r as the s t a t e law claim may require an addi t ional element
•
50
- - - - - - - -_ ._-- - - - - ----_._------
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 51 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 52/61
of bad fa i th or in ten t II ) ( in ternal quota t ions omitted) i Jeff rey
Mils te in , Inc. v. Gregor, Lawlor, Roth, Inc . , 58 F.3d 27, 34 35
(2d Cir . 1995) (" [T]he essence of unfa i r compet i t ion under New
York common law i s the bad fa i th misappropr ia t ion of the labors
and expenditures of another , l ike ly to cause confusion or to
deceive purchasers as to the or ig in of the goods H) .
Since the PRL Par t ies have demonstrated a l ikel ihood
of confusion between the par t i e s ' marks under t h e i r Lanham Act
claims and USPA in tended to capi t a l i ze on PRL's reputa t ion and
goodwill , the PRL Par t ie s preva i l on the i r unfa i r compet i t ion
claims as wel l .
Because the PRL Par t ie s have prevai led on t h e i r Lanham
Act and unfa i r compet i t ion claims, the Court need not reach the
par t i e s ' addi t ional s ta te law claims in order to i s sue a
permanent in junct ion . The scope of the r e l i e f sought- an
in junct ion prohib i t ing the USPA Par t ie s from using the "U. S.
POLO ASSN.H name in conjunct ion with the Double Horsemen mark in
men's f rag rances - - i s ident ica l regard less of whether the PRL
Par t ies would succeed on any of t he i r addi t ional claims.
IV. Per:manent Injunct ive Re l i e f
51
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 52 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 53/61
Tradi t ional ly , in trademark infringement act ions in
t h i s Circui t , a par ty seeking a permanent in junct ion "must
succeed on the mer i ts and show an absence of an adequate remedy
a t law and i r reparable harm i f the r e l i e f i s not granted ." Gayle
Martz, Inc. v. Sherpa Pet Group, Inc . , 651 F. Supp. 2d 72, 84 5
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (c i t ing Roach v. Morse, 440 F. 3d 53, 56 (2d
Cir. 2006). However, the Second Circu i t ' s recent decis ion in
Sal inger v. Colt ing, 607 F.3d 68, 74-75, announced in the
context of a copyright infringement act ion tha t th i s s tandard
fo r in junct ive r e l i e f had been abrogated by Inc. v.
MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006). The Second Circui t
held tha t a preliminary in junct ion should i ssue where the
pla in t i f f has shown a l ike l ihood of success on the mer i ts 16and
that : (1) "he i s l ikely to suf fer i r reparable injury in the
absence of an in junct ion"; (2) "remedies a t law, such as
monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate fo r tha t in jury";
(3) the balance of hardships t i p s in h is favor; and (4) "the
'publ ic in te res t would not be disserved ' by the issuance of a
preliminary in junct ion ." Sal inger v. Colt ing , 607 F.3d 68, 80
(2d Cir.2010) (c i t ing eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547
U.S. 388, 391 (2006)).
16"The s tandard fo r a prel iminary in junc t ion i s essen t i a l l y the same as
fo r a permanent in junc t ion with the except ion t h a t th e p l a i n t i f f must show al ike l ihood o f success on the mer i t s ra the r than ac tua l success ." Prod
Co. v. Vil lage of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 .
52
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 53 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 54/61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 55/61
Moreover, th i s Court recognizes t ha t "\ a maj or
depar ture from the long t r ad i t i on of equi ty prac t ice should not
be l igh t ly impl ied . ' " eBay, 547 U.S. a t 392 (quoting Weinberger
v. Romero-Barcelo, 426 U.S. 305, 320 (1982)). Sal inger strongly
suggested tha t eBay's standard appl ies in the context of any
in junct ion , so long as Congress does not in tend otherwise . 607
F.3d a t 77-78 & n.7 . As in eBay, no Congressional i n t e n t to the
contrary i s evident here but ins tead the reverse .
547 U.S. a t 391 92. The Lanham Act express ly provides t ha t
federa l cour ts "have power to grant in junct ions , according to
the pr inc iples of equi ty" in trademark infr ingement and di lu t ion
cases. 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (a) . SimilarlYt the Act express ly
s ta tes tha t the senior owner of a mark "sha l l be ent i t l ed" to an
in junct ion "subject to the pr inc iples of equi ty" with respect to
di lu t ion claims. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c) (1) .
Accordingly, the Court concludes tha t the four-
factored injunct ion standard ar t i cu la ted in eBay and ~ S _ a _ l _ ~ _
appl ies to th i s act ion .
A. Likel ihood o f Irreparable Injury
54
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 55 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 56/61
This C i rc u i t has prev ious ly recognized a presumpt ion
of i r r e p a ra b l e harm in t rademark in f r ingement ac t ions . Even
q u i t e recen t ly , th e C i rc u i t has held t h a t as long as t he re has
no t been undue delay in br ing ing a cla im, a " p l a i n t i f f who
es t ab l i s h e s t h a t an i n f r i n g e r ' s use of i t s t rademark c r ea t e s a
l i ke l ihood of consumer confus ion gene ra l ly i s e n t i t l e d to a
presumption o f i r r ep a r ab l e i n ju r y . " Weight Watchers lnt'l, Inc .
v . Luig ino ' s , I n c . , 423 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Ci r . 2005) i Zino
Davidof f SA v . CVS . , 571 F.3d, 246 (2d Ci r . 2009)See
a l so , Dunkin ' Donuts Franch i sed Res ts . LLC v . Tim & Tab
Inc. , No. 07-CV-3662 (KAM) (MDG) , 2009 WL 2997382, a t *8
(E.D.N.Y. Sept . 15, 2009) ( i r repa rab le in ju ry " i s au tomat ica l ly
s a t i ied by ac tua l success on t h e mer i t s as i r r ep a r ab l e harm i s
es t ab l i shed by a showing o f l i ke l ihood o f co n fu s io n . " ) ( i n t e rn a l
quota t ion and c i t a t i o n omit ted) .
P r i o r to Sa l i n g e r , which e l imina ted an analogous
presumption in the con tex t o f copyr igh t c la ims , 18 was s s
c l e a r whether eBay 's e l imina t ion o f th e presumpt ion o f
i r r e p a ra b l e harm app l ied to t rademark in f r ingement ac t ions . See
a lso Chloe v . DesignersImpor ts .com USA, I n c . , No. 07 Civ. 1791
(CS) (GAY), 2009 WL 1227927, a t *11 (S.D.N.Y. A p r i l 301
2009)
18"Af ter eBay . cour t s must n o t s imply presume i r r e p a r a b l e harm.
Rather , p l a i n t i f f s mush show t h a t , on the f a c t s o f t h e i r case , th e f a i l u r e to
i s sue an i n junc t ion would a c t u a l l y cause i r r e p a r a b l e harm. II Sa l inge r , 60 7
F.3d a t 82.
55
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 56 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 57/61
(retaining pre-eBay presumption); Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v.
Col ibr i Corp.! 692 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (same). In
l igh t of Sal inger ' s c la r i f i ca t ion t ha t "eBay's cent ra l lesson i s
tha t , unless Congress intended a 'major depar ture from the long
t rad i t ion of equi ty prac t i ce , ! a cour t deciding whether to i ssue
an in junct ion must not adopt ' ca tegor ica l ! or ' genera l ! ru les or
presume tha t a par ty has met an element of the in junct ion
standard! 11 607 F.3d a t 77-78 & n.7 , the presumption of
i r reparable injury in trademark cases i s no longer appropr ia te .
See Pret ty Gir l , 2011 WL 887993, a t *2 & n . 4 i New York City
Triathlon! 704 F. Supp. 2d a t 342 43. Even without the
presumption, however, the PRL Par t ie s have adequately
demonstrated i r reparable harm here.
"Irreparable harm exis t s in a trademark case when the
par ty seeking the in junct ion shows tha t it wil l lose control
over the reputa t ion of i t s trademark because loss of
contro l over one ' s reputa t ion i s ne i the r 'ca lculable nor
prec ise ly compensable. 11 New York City Tria th lon , 704 F. Supp.
2d a t 343 ( interna l quota t ion marks ommitted) (quoting Power
Inc. v. Calcu Gas Inc . , 754 F.2d 91,
95 (2d Cir . 1985); Omega Importing Corp. v. Petr i-Kine Camera
Co.! 451 F.2d 1190! 1195 (2d Cir . 1971).
56
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 57 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 58/61
Here, absent an in junct ion , given the l ike l ihood of
confusion between the Polo Player Logo and USPA's Double
Horsemen Trademark, the reputa t ion and goodwill cul t ivated by
PRL's would be out of i t s hands. The USPA Par t ies ' product may
or may not be of high qual i ty , sold with su f f i c i en t care to
customer serv ice , or convey the same branding image tha t has
been highly cul t ivated by Ralph Lauren. In any event , the
impression given to consumers by the USPA Par t ies ' product , and
so the reputa t ion and goodwill of thePRL
Par t i e s ' , wil l not be
in PRL's cont ro l . The Court therefore agrees tha t though the
harm the PRL Par t ie s wi l l suf fer in terms of reputa t ion and
goodwill cannot be quant i f ied , the PRL Part ies wil l be
i r reparably in jured in the absence of a permanent in junct ion .
B. Adequacy of Remedies a t Law
Because the losses of reputa t ion and goodwill and
re su l t ing loss of customers are not prec i se ly quant i f iable ,
remedies a t la w cannot adequately compensate Pla in t i f f fo r i t s
in jur i es . See genera l ly Northwestern Nat! l Ins. Co. of
Mi Wisc. v. Alberts , 937 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir . 1991)
( "The i r reparable injury requi s i t e fo r the preliminary
in junct ion over laps with the absent lack of adequate remedy a t
law necessary to es tab l i sh the equi tab le r igh t s . " ) .
57
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 58 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 59/61
Accordingly, the cour t f inds tha t remedies a t law are inadequate
to compensate the PRL Par t ies in th i s case.
C. The Balance of Hardships
The equi t ies weigh in the PRL Par t ies ' favor . PRL
has sold men's f ragrances bear ing the PRL Polo Player logo and
POLO marks fo r over th i r ty years and has mult iple regis te red
trademarks fo r the i r use on fragrances . (Tr. 52:13-21. ;PRL
Ex.
14.) The subs tan t ia l l ike l ihood of consumer confusion and
potent ia l loss to PRL both in terms of sa les and reputa t ion
threa ten to cause the PRL Par t ies ser ious harm. In cont ras t ,
the USPA Par t ie s have yet to enter the f ragrance market in
earnes t . While 10,000 uni t s of the USPA's product have been
produced a t the i r cos t (Tr. 277:11-15), only approximately 3,500
of which were sold (Tr. 278:10-13), th i s i s not so grea t as to
outweigh the harm tha t would be done to the PRL Par t i es absent
an in junct ion.
D. The Public Interest
The consuming public has a protec table i n t e r e s t in
being f ree from confusion, decept ion and mistake. See New York
Ci ty Tria th lon , 704 F. Supp. 2d a t 344 ( \\ [T] he public has an
58
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 59 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 60/61
i n t e re s t in not being deceived- - in being assured tha t the mark
it associa tes with a product i s not at tached to goods of unknown
or ig in and qua l i ty . " ) t ing SK & F. Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs. ,
Inc ' r 625 F.2d lOSS, 1067 (3 d Cir . 1980)) i Gayle Martz, 651 F.
Supp. 2d a t 85) .
Because of the l ike l ihood of consumer confusion in
t h i s case, the publ ic i n t e re s t would be served by the i ssuance
of an in junct ion , and t h i s fac to r weighs in P l a i n t i f f ' s favor .
Conclusion
The USPA Par t i e s contend t ha t the PRL Par t i e s are
at tempt ing to monopolize the depic t ion of the spor t of polo. No
monopoly over the use of the word polo o r i t s dep ic t ion ex i s t s .
As Judge Sand noted, the PRL Par t ie s do not have a r i gh t to take
ac t ion with respect to the use of any equest r ian f igure or the
word "polo." Sand Opinion, 1984 WL 1309, a t *17. As Judge Sand
observed, and Judge Goet tel before him, it i s c l ea r t ha t "polo"
i s gener ic with regard to polo sh i r t s and coats . rd. a t *2.
Polo may be descr ip t ive as to o ther sh i r t s and coats as well as
to var ious uses with regard to the spor t . Nothing in t h i s orde r
i s intended to prevent the USPA Par t ie s from using "polo" to the
extent they do so gener i ca l ly o r desc r ip t ive ly . There continue
59
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 60 of 61
8/6/2019 L'Oreal Polo Ass'n Decision
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/loreal-polo-assn-decision 61/61
to be coun t less ways in which the spor t o f polo can be depicted
without i n f r ing ing on the PRL Pa r t i e s ' marks.
There is , in Judge Sand ' s words, c l e a r l y room in our
v as t soc ie ty fo r both th e USPA Par t i e s and th e PRL P a r t i e s to
engage in 1 i cenaing ac t i v i t i e s t h a t do not c o n f l i c t with one
another , and nothing contained in t h i s opin ion should be
construed as prec lud ing such ac t i v i t i e s . Id. a t * 8 .
Nonetheless , to the ex ten t theUSPA
P ar t i e s use~ p o l o n
in
conjunct ion the Double Horsemen mark on f ragrances , t h i s i s
ano ther mat te r . The USPA Par t i e s use of ;'POLO'I in conj unct ion
with th e Double Horsemen mark in the con tex t here i n f r inges the
PRL P ar t i e s ' subs tan t ive trademark r i g h t s .
Based on th e f indings and conc lua ions s e t fo r th above,
th e cla ims of the uni ted s t a t e s Polo Associa t ion Par t i es are
dismissed and th e PRL Par t i es are g ran ted i n junc t ive r e l i e f .
Submit judgment on not ice . I t i s so ordered .
New York, NY
MAy if ' 2011
Case 1:09-cv-09476-RWS Document 80 Filed 05/13/11 Page 61 of 61