Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Four-U-Packaging, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 948

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP and Georgia-Pacific LLC sue Four-U-Packaging, Inc. for trademark and related claims over replacement towels used in Georgia-Pacific dispensers.
Plaintiffs allege Four-U’s towels from von Drehle are used in GP dispensers, causing false designation of origin, dilution, and confusion.
Seven causes of action are asserted: Lanham Act false designation, contributory infringement, counterfeiting, common law unfair competition, tortious interference with contractual relationships, tortious interference with business relationships, and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Jurisdiction is based on federal question and diversity, with Four-U moving to dismiss (treated as summary judgment).
The court grants Four-U’s motion, concluding issue preclusion bars the claims, based on a prior Arkansas case involving similar facts and the same distributor/consumer dynamics.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether issue preclusion bars the claims	Georgia-Pacific argues dissimilar facts and standards prevent preclusion	Four-U contends prior Arkansas judgment decided essential issues and is binding	Issue preclusion applies; prior issues are identical and essential to judgment
Whether dissimilar facts between cases defeat preclusion	Facts differ (region, consumer surveys, and end users)	Core issues and industry practice are transferable; identical underlying facts	No dissimilarity defeats preclusion; underlying facts are sufficiently identical
Whether Ohio claims could be litigated in Arkansas case or are barred	Ohio claims should be litigable separately	Underlying facts litigated in Arkansas control; Ohio claims barred	Ohio claims barred by issue preclusion as they arise from the same facts
Whether differing standards between Sixth and Eighth Circuits affect preclusion	Different likelihood-of-confusion tests hinder preclusion	Standards are substantially same; comparison yields preclusion	Standards essentially the same; preclusion still applies
Whether conflicting Fourth and Eighth Circuit determinations undermine preclusion	Circuit splits create inconsistency	Decisions are not inconsistent; no conflict	No true conflict between Fourth and Eighth Circuits justifies denying preclusion

Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 918 F.2d 658 (6th Cir.1990) (issue preclusion elements framework)
Wolfe v. Perry, 412 F.3d 707 (6th Cir.2005) (defining prerequisites for issue preclusion)
Santana-Albarran v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 699 (6th Cir.2005) (enforces preclusion in related disputes)
Gray v. Meijer, Inc., 295 F.3d 641 (6th Cir.2002) (no single factor dispositive in likelihood of confusion)
Auto-Zone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786 (6th Cir.2004) (core question is consumer confusion about affiliation)
Davis v. Walt Disney Co., 430 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.2005) (likelihood-of-confusion factors guide, not dispositive)
General Motors Corp. v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., 453 F.3d 351 (6th Cir.2006) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion; summary judgment context)
SquirtCo v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir.1980) (non-exhaustive factors for confusion analysis)
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (preclusion and choice-of-law principles in federal courts)
Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic Education, 40 S.W.3d 784 (Ark. 2001) (Arkansas preclusion framework for state-law issues)