Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp. - 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)

Rule:

Where the products are different, a prior owner's chance of success in a trademark infringement action is a function of many variables: the strength of his mark, the degree of similarity between the two marks, the proximity of the products, the likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap, actual confusion, and the reciprocal of defendant's good faith in adopting its own mark, the quality of defendant's product, and the sophistication of the buyers.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Polaroid Corporation, a Delaware corporation, owner of the trademark Polaroid and holder of 22 United States registrations thereof granted between 1936 and 1956 and of a New York registration granted in 1950, brought an action in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that defendant's use of the name Polarad as a trademark and as part of defendant's corporate title infringed plaintiff's Federal and state trademarks and constituted unfair competition. It sought a broad injunction and an accounting. Defendant's answer, in addition to denying the allegations of the complaint, sought a declaratory judgment establishing defendant's right to use Polarad in the business in which defendant was engaged, an injunction against plaintiff's use of Polaroid in the television and electronics fields, and other relief. The lower court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaims, concluding that neither plaintiff nor defendant had made an adequate showing with respect to confusion and that both had been guilty of laches. Both parties appealed but defendant has withdrawn its cross-appeal. 

Issue:

Did the lower court err in dismissing both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counterclaim with regard to the issue of trademark infringement?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision and held that plaintiff's delay in proceedings against defendant barred it from relief. The court found that plaintiff's mark was a strong one and the similarity between the two names was great, but the evidence of actual confusion, when analyzed, was not impressive.