Men's Salon Case: KS District Court to Determine Actual Confusion Between "John Allan's" and "Craig Allen's" Marks

Holding:

In a case pitting two men's grooming salons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's judgment that the "Craig Allen's" name did not infringe the "John Allan's" trademark. In particular, the Tenth Circuit stated that the district court's conclusion was inconsistent with its own previous findings that three factors under the Lanham Act's "likelihood of confusion" test weighed in favor of The John Allan Company, while only one factor, the absence of actual confusion, weighed in favor of The Craig Allen Company. It was not true that there was no evidence of actual confusion, because The John Allan Company was able to present evidence from two witnesses who testified about the confusion between the salons’ names. Although this evidence may be de minimis, the Tenth Circuit left this determination for the district court to make in the first instance, on remand. In this regard, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Detailed Summary:

The John Allan Company initiated a trademark infringement lawsuit against The Craig Allen Company pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a). After trial, the district court concluded the use of the name “Craig Allen’s” for a grooming salon in Wichita, Kansas did not infringe on the mark “John Allan’s.” Opinion, p. 2.

By way of background, in 1988, John Allan Meing opened a men’s grooming salon near Wall Street in New York City. The salon, John Allan’s, was designed to provide salon services for men in a club-like environment. Since that time, the company has grown. At…

More Updates