Vanzant

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER (1) GRANTING VANZANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I AND II OF CHRYSLER’S COMPLAINT, AND ON THAT PORTION OF COUNT III WHICH STATES A CLAIM FOR STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION; AND (2) DENYING CHRYSLER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE OF ITS GRILLE DESIGN’S NON-FUNCTIONALITY.

Currently before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, one filed by plaintiff and one filed by defendant. The Court has read and considered plaintiff and defendant’s moving papers, defendant and plaintiffs opposition, and plaintiff and defendant’s reply papers. Based on such consideration, the. Court concludes as follows:

I.

BACKGROUND

Since 1992, plaintiff Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”) and defendant Ted L. Vanzant (“Vanzant”) have been embroiled in this litigation. The primary basis of this litigation is Chrysler’s assertion that Vanzant has infringed its trademark rights in a Jeep grille design by manufacturing and selling form-fitting grille screens and overlays that mimic the grille design.

Chrysler originally filed its complaint against Vanzant in the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Michigan on September 4, 1992. Vanzant,…