Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an Individual

Bad Law
599 F.2d 341·204 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 808·1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13615
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 28, 197976-1744California5,618 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

In this trademark infringement action, the district court, after a brief non-jury trial, found appellant AMF’s trade mark was valid, but not infringed, and denied AMF’s request for injunctive relief.

AMF and appellee Nescher both manufacture recreational boats. AMF uses the mark Slickcraft, and Nescher uses Sleek-craft. The crux of this appeal is whether concurrent use of the two marks is likely to confuse the public. The district judge held that confusion was unlikely. We disagree and remand for entry of a limited injunction.

1. FACTS

AMF’s predecessor used the name Slick-craft Boat Company from 1954 to 1969 when it became a division of AMF. The mark Slickcraft was federally registered on April 1, 1969, and has been continuously used since then as a trademark for this line of recreational boats.

Slickcraft boats are distributed and advertised nationally. AMF has authorized over one hundred retail outlets to sell the Slickcraft line. For the years 1966-1974, promotional expenditures for the Slickcraft line averaged approximately $200,000 annually. Gross sales for the same period approached $50,000,000.

After several years in the boat-building business, appellee Nescher…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.