0CD7A107d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 of 1 DOCUMENT CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. No. 00-2373 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 269 F.3d 270 ; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22524; 60 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1609; 187 A.L.R. Fed. 585 April 5, 2001, Argued October 19, 2001, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended October 26, 2001. PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. D.C. Civil Action No. 96-cv-03153. (Honorable Jerome B. Simandle). Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 427, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9690 (D.N.J. 2000) DISPOSITION: Affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff security device manufacturer sued defendant security software installer for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found no likelihood of confusion and ruled in favor of the software installer. The device manufacturer appealed from the judgment. OVERVIEW: The appellate court determined that the district court did not clearly err in applying the Lapp factors in its determination that there was no likelihood of direct marketplace confusion. Because the parties' products were not related, and were marketed to different consumers through different channels, the evidence demonstrated it was unlikely that the relevant consumers, who exercised a high degree of care in purchasing and selecting among these products, were likely to be confused by the parties' similar marks. Additionally, the markets were unlikely to converge in the future, and the minimal evidence of actual initial interest confusion was insufficient to override that conclusion. Regarding the reverse confusion claim, the district court did not improperly evaluate the actual confusion evidence or the strength of the marks. OUTCOME: The judgment in favor of the software installer was affirmed. CORE TERMS: checkpoint, consumer, software, user's, purchaser, trademark, Lanham Act, network, technology, customer, purchasing, investor, senior, junior, similarity, surveillance, firewall, confused, electronic, buyer, security market, specialist, actionable, probative, goodwill, security systems, descriptive, infringement, media, unfair competition Page 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > General Overview Trademark Law > Likelihood of Confusion > General Overview [HN1] The appellate court exercises plenary review over the district court's legal conclusions concerning the Lanham Act. The appellate court reviews factual findings on the likelihood of confusion for clear error. Trademark Law > Federal Unfair Competition Law > General Overview
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 32

0CD7A107d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online