Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rush Industries, Inc. v. Garnier LLC
Citation: 309 F. App'x 431Docket: No. 07-3540-cv
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 2, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Rush Industries, Inc. appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which granted Gamier LLC’s motion for summary judgment on Rush's trademark infringement claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and related state law claims. The court addressed two evidentiary challenges by Gamier, concluding that Rush's employee affidavits were admissible as they demonstrated the speakers' state of mind, not for the truth of the statements, thus not constituting hearsay. However, expert testimony from Philip Hampton was deemed inadmissible due to its reliance on legal standards and conclusory assertions regarding the distinctiveness of Rush's mark. The court evaluated the likelihood of confusion using the eight Polaroid factors. It affirmed the District Court's finding that Rush failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding Gamier's bad faith or actual consumer confusion. Furthermore, the court determined that the marks in question were not confusingly similar as used. Even if other Polaroid factors favored Rush, the absence of likelihood of confusion led to the dismissal of both the Lanham Act and state law claims. All other arguments from Rush were considered and found unmeritorious. The District Court's judgment is therefore affirmed.