Lamborghini And Aev's Case Summary

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE GOODS PROVIDED BY BOTH PARTIES ARE DIRECTLY RELATED AND BOTH PARTIES CONSUMERS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED. The related goods Frisch factor should favor Lamborghini because Lamborghini and AEV’s goods and consumers are related. Lamborghini’s goods are related because both goods are high performance vehicles whose prices overlap and it is possible that one company could be associated or sponsored with the other. Lamborghini and AEV’s consumers are related because both companies market their goods to wealthy, middle aged men in Michigan. a. Plaintiff and defendant’s goods are related because both parties’ produce high-end vehicles that overlap in prices and a consumer of Lamborghini can easily assume that Lamborghini expanded into producing off-road vehicles.

The 6th circuit court has adopted the following three categories of cases for assessing the relatedness of goods: (1) confusion is likely when the marks are sufficiently similar and the parties compete directly by offering their goods; (2) likelihood of confusion turns on the other factors if the goods are somewhat related but not competitive; (3) confusion is unlikely if the …show more content…
Wynn Oil Co. v. Amer. Way Serv. Corp., 943 F.2d 595, 600 (6th Cir. 1991). Specifically, goods are related when they are directly competitive. Homeowners Grp., Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, 931 F.2d 1100, 1109 (6th Cir. 1991). Also, products are related when both products are a part of the same “schedule of classes of goods" issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. Little Caesar Enter v. Pizza Caesar, Inc., 834 F.2d 568, 571 (6th Cir. 1987). Further, products are related when the prices of two similar products overlap. Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 423 (6th Cir.