Court says shoo to Scat’s infringement claim against Dodge

Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 5896182, No.
CV 14-7995 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2017)
Scat, a maker of aftermarket car parts, sued over FCA’s use
of “Scat Pack” in connection with its Dodge Challenger and Dodge Charger “Scat
Pack”-edition cars, primarily alleging reverse confusion.  The court rejected its claims for money
remedies (disgorgement, corrective advertising, treble damages, or punitive
damages).  Scat sought disgorgement of
profits under an unjust enrichment theory rather than as a measure of lost
sales; this requires willful infringement in the Ninth Circuit.  And willfulness means actions “calculated to
exploit the advantage of an established mark.” 
As to Scat’s reverse confusion theory, there could be no such calculated
exploitation where the junior mark overwhelms the senior. Thus, there can be no
accounting “even if the defendant was willfully blind to the possibility of
Nor could there be disgorgement under a forward confusion
theory, because top Dodge executives responsible for Dodge’s use of “Scat Pack”
in 1967, for the 2013 launch of “Scat Pack” for newer models of the Dodge
Charger and Challenger cars, and for Mopar’s use of “Scat Pack” for kits for older
models, all testified that they were unaware of Scat’s existence. In 2013, FCA’s
legal department conducted a trademark search for the phrase “Scat Pack” and
neither Scat nor any of its trademarks showed up in the search. Scat argued
that FCA’s search wasn’t sufficient because it didn’t search for the word “Scat”
alone, but that doesn’t translate into willful exploitation. Likewise, FCA’s
decision to continue using the “Scat Pack” mark after the USPTO refused
registration of the mark—one that FCA used for decades—also wasn’t willfulness.
Corrective advertising: To get this, a plaintiff must prove
that the alleged infringement resulted in actual lost value to its mark. There
was no such showing here.  Scat argued
that there was actual confusion shown by FCA’s survey; though this was
disputed, Scat didn’t submit its own survey, despite having the clear financial
means to do so, creating “an inference that the results of such a survey would
have been unfavorable to its position.” 
Plus, even actual confusion wouldn’t  itself show actual harm to its mark. Here,
there was no evidence demonstrating that FCA’s use of “Scat Pack” adversely
impacted Scat’s growth or caused it to lose any sales or business
opportunities.  Scat also waived its
claim for punitive damages.
But anyway, confusion was unlikely. The key factors: (1)
relatedness of goods; (2) similarity of marks; (3) consumers’ degree of care;
(4) marketing channels. Though the parties were both generally part of the automotive
industry, Scat makes “high-end performance aftermarket car parts which it
markets and sells to a sophisticated niche of car enthusiast consumers,” while
FCA used the “Scat Pack” mark to refer to two of its passenger cars that retail
for approximately $40,000 apiece. “Although the goods may inhabit the same
broad field, the automotive industry, they are markedly different.”  FCA sold parts/kits only for its own cars, and
only through authorized dealerships. Scat made parts for several car companies,
including Chevrolet, Ford, Pontiac, and Honda, and sold these parts through
aftermarket parts distributors or directly to end consumers. Relatedness plainly
favored FCA.
Similarity: While the parties both used the word “scat” to
signify speed and quick acceleration, FCA’s addition of “pack” distinguished
it.  In 1967, when FCA began using “Scat
Pack,” it was an umbrella marketing term for several of Defendant’s muscle cars,
and then in 2013 it was the tagline for the high performance versions of its
Dodge Charger and Dodge Challenger cars. The term “Pack” gave the meaning of a
group or club, e.g., “Run with the Dodge Scat Pack.” Moreover, the designs were
different: FCA used the “Scat Pack Racing Bee” character and its house marks,
while for Scat, generally the mark’s logo only contains the unitary word “Scat”
in different stylized fonts or there’s also a reference to a specific part,
e.g., “Scat Crankshafts.” Even though the marks sometimes appeared in plain
font when used on third-party websites such as eBay Motors and Amazon, they
generally appeared with their distinct logos. Advantage FCA.

“[B]ecause the typical consumers of the parties’ products
are relatively sophisticated, there is minimal chance of confusion.” Scat’s rotating
assemblies sold for over $2,000, while FCA’s cars retailed for approximately
$40,000 apiece, justifying greater care, and Scat’s customers in particular
were “a sophisticated niche of car enthusiast consumers. There is no question
that purchasing one of Plaintiff’s specialty automotive parts requires either a
considerable amount of research by a ‘casual’ consumer or, alternatively, the
knowledge already held by a sophisticated car enthusiast.”

And the parties’ marketing channels were distinct: FCA sold
to authorized independent dealerships, while Scat sold to aftermarket parts
distributors or directly to end consumers. FCA marketed its cars to the general
public primarily through mass media television and radio; Scat marketed to its through
its own website and catalogs, trade shows, and advertising in various industry
trade and consumer magazines. Occasional overlap at the same trade shows was
insufficient to increase the likelihood of confusion.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s