eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)
What was the outcome of the trademark infringement case KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc.
v.
LastingImpression I, Inc.?
The case KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc.
v.
LastingImpression I, Inc.
was a trademark dispute decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2004.
The dispute was over the use of the mark "micro color" for permanent makeup services.
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc.
claimed that LastingImpression I, Inc.'s use of the mark constituted trademark infringement and dilution.
The court also found that LastingImpression's use of the mark was likely to cause consumer confusion, and ordered LastingImpression to stop using the mark.
This decision was significant because it clarified the standards for proving secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion in trademark cases.
The case involved two sellers of permanent makeup who used the phrase "micro color" in their marketing materials.
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc.
claimed that it first used the phrase while Lasting Impression I, Inc.
had an incontestable trademark for the phrase.
The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari, and the Ninth Circuit's decision stood.
The Ninth Circuit's decision in this case has been cited in subsequent cases involving trademark infringement and dilution.
Trademark law is designed to protect consumers by ensuring that they are not confused about the source of goods or services.
Trademark infringement occurs when someone uses a trademark in a way that is likely to cause confusion about the source of goods or services.
Dilution occurs when someone uses a trademark in a way that is likely to harm the reputation of the trademark by blurring or tarnishing its distinctiveness.
Acquired secondary meaning refers to a situation where a trademark has become associated with a particular source of goods or services, even if the trademark is not inherently distinctive.
Incontestable status refers to a situation where a trademark registration has been in effect for a certain period of time and cannot be challenged on certain grounds.
Likelihood of confusion is a key factor in trademark infringement cases, and it is determined by considering a number of factors, including the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services.
Fair use is a defense to trademark infringement that may be raised in certain circumstances, but it is not available if there is a likelihood of confusion.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a finding of a likelihood of confusion forecloses a fair use defense.
Trademark law is governed by both federal and state law, and it is enforced by both public and private actors.
Compliance with trademark law is essential for businesses that want to protect their brands and avoid legal liability.
eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)