Is there a likelihood of confusion between Inspector
Gadget, the robotic, bumbling, cartoon detective, and Inspector Gadget Home
Inspections, the home, mold and termite inspection service? Cookie Jar
Entertainment Inc., owner of the cartoon Inspector Gadget's intellectual
property rights, thinks so.
On March 16th, Cookie Jar filed a complaint against Inspector Gadget Home Inspections, asserting
the following federal claims:
In its complaint, Cookie Jar alleges that the defendant operates
a home inspection business under the name "Inspector Gadget Home
Inspections." In connection therewith, the defendant filed a trademark
application to register the trademark "Inspector Gadget Home Inspections"
and also registered and is using the Internet domain name inspectorgadget.net.
The complaint accuses the defendant of misusing Cookie Jar's
Inspector Gadget trademark in its business name and domain name, thereby
significantly injuring Cookie Jar's reputation and goodwill and diluting the
distinctiveness of the Inspector Gadget trademark. On the issue of confusion,
Cookie Jar alleges:
Defendant adopted and placed
Cookie Jar's entire INSPECTOR GADGETS trademark into Defendant's business name
in an intentional and deliberate manner designed to attract consumers to his
business based upon their confused, mistaken and/or deceived belief that the
products and services of Defendant are sponsored by, endorsed by, or approved
by Cookie Jar and/or that Defendant is somehow sponsored by, endorsed by, or
affiliated with or Cookie Jar, when it is not.
willfully and deliberately registered the Internet domain name
<inspectorgadget.net>, that incorporates Cookie Jar's entire INSPECTOR
GADGETS trademark, in order to attract consumers to his business based upon their
confused, mistaken and/or deceived belief that the products and services of
Defendant are sponsored by, endorsed by, or approved by Cookie Jar and/or that
Defendant is somehow sponsored by, endorsed by, or affiliated with Cookie Jar,
when it is not.
While confusion, in this case, remains to be seen, it's
not unusual for animated or imaginary characters to accuse others of creating
confusion. Before the Inspector Gadget lawsuit, Toucan Sam, King Kong and
Godzilla all took their trademark claims to court. Those cases are listed below:
Co. v. Toucan Golf, Inc.,
337 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. Mich. 2003) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
claimed that Toucan Golf, Inc.'s word mark and its corresponding toucan logo
created a likelihood of confusion with, and diluted the distinctiveness of,
Kellogg's five federally-registered and incontestable "Toucan Sam"
logos and word mark.
City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. N.Y.
1984) [enhanced version]
alleged that the Donkey Kong name, character and story constituted false
designation of origin because Nintendo's actions falsely suggested that its
product originated with or was authorized, sponsored or approved by the owner
of the King Kong name, character and story.
Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 645 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. Cal.
1981) [enhanced version]
accused Sears of improperly using a likeness of Toho's movie character,
Godzilla. Sears sold garbage bags in boxes which displayed the word
"Bagzilla," depicted a personified reptilian creature, and carried
the legend "Monstrously Strong Bags."
a better understanding of this case, read:
1-11 The Law of Advertising § 11.02 The Lanham Trademark Act and Advertising (Non-subscribers can
purchase The Law of Advertising at
the LexisNexis Bookstore)
A principal goal of almost all business owners is to
build an association, in the minds of purchasers of their goods and services,
between those goods and services and their source and quality so as to assure
repeat purchases, customer loyalty and trust. This goal is best accomplished by
adopting a mark which is disseminated as widely as possible through advertising.
1-6 Trademark and Unfair Competition Deskbook § 6.05 Similarity of Goods and Services (Non-subscribers
can purchase Trademark and Unfair
Competition Deskbook at the LexisNexis Bookstore)
tend to presume confusion is likely where goods sold under the same or similar
marks are themselves similar, the same, or closely related. This presumption is
founded on the premise that consumers have been conditioned to assume that
manufacturers and merchants usually manufacture and market their goods and
services within related fields. Thus ....
3-28 Business Torts § 28.05 Trademark Dilution (Non-subscribers
can purchase Business Torts at the LexisNexis Bookstore)
theory of trademark dilution offers an alternative and additional claim for
owners of strong, well-recognized trademarks against the users of similar
marks. Trademark dilution is the weakening of a mark's ability to clearly and
unmistakably distinguish the product's source. 1 Trademark dilution claims
often arise when a defendant has used the plaintiff's trademark ....
1-2A Gilson on Trademarks § 2A.05 Likelihood of Confusion (Non-subscribers can purchase Gilson
on Trademarks at the LexisNexis Bookstore)
the very heart of a trademark infringement claim lies the issue of likelihood
of confusion. It can affect every aspect of the litigation, foreshadowing a
meticulous factor-by-factor search for the overall equities of the case. 1
is settled public policy that the Lanham Act exists to protect consumers from
being confused ....
. . . .
Explore the LEXIS.com Estates, Gifts & Trusts and Elder Law resources
Discover the features and benefits of LexisNexis® Tax Center
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate