1 of 1 DOCUMENT
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22524; 60 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1609; 187 A.L.R.
April 5, 2001, Argued
October 19, 2001, Filed
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)
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
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.
The judgment in favor of the software installer was affirmed.
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