Supreme Court shifts burden of proving confusion in trademark infringement

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a company that had used the term "micro color" to describe its cosmetic product did not have the burden of showing that there was no likelihood of consumers confusing that product with a similarly-named product by another manufacturer alleging trademark infringement, but rather than the plaintiff manufacturer had the positive burden of showing that there was likely consumer confusion as a result of the practice. The full text of the court's opinion in KP Permanent Make-up Inc. v. Lasting Impression (case backgrounder from Duke Law School's Program in Public Law) is here [PDF; per Justice Souter]. AP has more.

 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.