close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

FLEX by Fenwick is the only service created by an AmLaw 100 firm that provides flexible and cost-effective solutions for interim in-house legal needs to high-growth companies.  MORE >

Fenwick & West handles significant cross-border legal and business issues for a wide range of technology and life sciences who operate internationally..  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


The Ninth Circuit Writes the Script on Pleading and Proving Reverse Confusion Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the requirements for pleading and establishing a trademark infringement claim under a “reverse confusion” theory in Marketquest Group v. BIC, Case No. 15-55755 (9th Cir. July 7, 2017). The court relieved plaintiffs from having to specifically plead reverse confusion if it is compatible with the theory of infringement alleged in the complaint, and supported a more malleable standard for proving intent in reverse confusion cases. The court also held that good faith is an element—not just a factor—of a fair use defense, and that the fair use defense may only be raised after a likelihood of confusion is established. Marketquest further reinforces courts’ reluctance to decide trademark cases on summary judgment, and makes it more difficult for defendants to dispose of reverse confusion claims through pretrial motions.

A Tale of Two Catalogues: Background on Marketquest’s Claims

A trademark owner can assert a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act under two theories: forward confusion and reverse confusion. See Surfvivor Media v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2005). Forward confusion occurs when consumers believe that goods bearing the junior mark came from, or were sponsored by, the senior mark holder. By contrast, reverse confusion occurs when consumers dealing with the senior mark holder believe that they are doing business with the junior mark holder.

In the Marketquest case, the plaintiff owned the trademarks “All-in-One” and “The Write Choice” for the production and sale of promotional products. In 2009, Defendants BIC Corp. and BIC USA, Inc., acquired Norwood, a promotional products company, and in 2010 Norwood published a promotional products catalogue for 2011 that featured the phrase “All-in-One” on both the cover and inside the catalogue. The year before, BIC had also used the phrase “The WRITE Pen Choice for 30 Years” in connection with a 30th anniversary promotion of its pens. Marketquest sued the defendants alleging infringement of its “All-in-One” and “The Write Choice” marks. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that even though there was some likelihood of confusion, fair use provided a complete defense to the allegations of infringement of both the “All-in-One” and “The Write Choice” marks.

Reverse Confusion Claims: Easy to Write and Now Harder to Defend

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, noting repeatedly in its opinion that “summary judgment is generally disfavored in the trademark arena” due to “the intensely factual nature of trademark disputes.” See KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression I, 408 F.3d 596, 602 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

First, the court held that reverse confusion is not a separate claim that must be specifically pleaded, but instead is a theory of likely confusion that may be alleged by itself or in addition to forward confusion. The court held that Marketquest’s pleading was adequate to support a cause of action for trademark infringement under a reverse confusion theory of likely confusion, even though Marketquest had only specifically alleged forward confusion, alleged no examples of confusion or market saturation, and generally alleged that there was some confusion “as to whether some affiliation, connection, or association exist[ed]” among the parties.

Second, the court held that the intent factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis varies with the type of confusion being considered, and no specific type of evidence is required to establish intent. Because neither party typically wishes to siphon off the other’s goodwill in reverse confusion cases, the court noted, a defendant’s mere knowledge of the senior user’s mark may not be sufficient to establish intent. Knowledge, however, was one of the several potential signs of intent. Other facts potentially suggesting the intent to confuse included evidence that a defendant deliberately intended to push a plaintiff out of the market by flooding the market with advertising to create reverse confusion, evidence that the defendant should have known of the mark, a failure to conduct a reasonably adequate trademark search, or otherwise culpably disregarded the risk of reverse confusion.

Third, the court held that good faith is an element of the fair use defense and not merely a factor to consider. As with intent, the court noted there is no bright-line rule or required type of evidence to establish good or bad faith.

Finally, the court held that fair use is an affirmative defense that comes into play only after likelihood of confusion is established. Here, the district court erred in applying the fair use analysis to the defendants’ use of “The Write Choice” mark after determining that Marketquest had presented no evidence of likely confusion. If there is no likelihood of confusion, then a plaintiff’s claims fail and there is no need to consider the affirmative defense of fair use. But because likelihood of confusion is a fact-intensive question, it is difficult to resolve at the summary judgment stage. And a court cannot reach the merits of a fair use defense on summary judgment unless the defendant concedes (or loses) on the confusion claims. The effect of the court’s ruling is that it will be harder for defendants to rely on a fair use defense at the summary judgment stage.

Takeaways: The Story of Reverse Confusion Is Written Long Before the Lawsuit Begins

Marketquest makes it easier for plaintiffs to assert a reverse confusion theory of trademark infringement, as it is now sufficient for plaintiffs to allege that consumers were confused “as to whether some affiliation, connection, or association exist[ed]” between the parties to plead both forward and reverse confusion theories. The decision’s malleable intent standard also creates considerable uncertainty over what constitutes intent in reverse confusion cases. Given the court’s expansive view of evidence supporting intent and good faith, businesses that are often hit with reverse confusion claims—such as viral startups—should take care in selecting a trademark. The initial steps to select a mark can later form the basis for showing intent or bad faith.​​​​​