Unit 2_LS311_Discussion response

13453Respond or elaborate on response below:

Under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement occurs when a party uses a mark in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion about the source or sponsorship of goods or services (Cornell Law School, n.d.). In this case, Apple is claiming that iHiker’s name infringes on its registered trademarks for “iPhone” and “iPad.” While all three marks share the “i” prefix, that alone is not enough to establish infringement. The suffix “Hiker” denotes a different product purpose and identity, specifically targeting outdoor and fitness software, which contrasts with Apple’s hardware devices. Unless there is clear evidence that iHiker intended to benefit from Apple’s brand recognition or mislead consumers, a strong argument can be made that iHiker is not infringing on Apple’s trademarks within the meaning of the Lanham Act.

In Universal Money Centers, Inc. v. AT&T, AT&T, the plaintiff, had released their new “AT&T Universal Card” which UMC claimed infringed upon its trademarks (“UNIVERSAL MONEY CARD”, “UNIVERSAL MONEY CENTER”, and “UNIVERSAL MONEY”). UMC stated that AT&T’s use of “universal” in their branding would cause confusion regarding the source or affiliation of the services provided, but the district court judged in favor of AT&T, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision (Universal Money Centers, Inc. v. AT&T, 1994). To determine the likelihood of confusion, the Tenth Circuit applies a six-factor test; the similarity of the marks, intent of the alleged infringer, actual confusion, similarity of products and marketing channels, degree of purchaser care, and the strength of the plaintiff’s mark (Court Schools Trademark Holder: Nearly Identical Trademark Doesn’t Infringe, n.d.). Although Apple’s marks are strong and the shared “i” prefix may raise concern, the differences in product types, branding, and lack of actual confusion weigh against a finding of infringement, similarly to the aforementioned UMC v. AT&T. In iHiker’s case, I believe the distinctiveness of the full name and the context in which the app is used suggest that consumer confusion is unlikely.