Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.
843 F. Supp. 2d 412
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Gucci America, Inc. sues Guess?, Inc. and related entities alleging Lanham Act trademark claims and New York state law claims.
- Gucci asserts infringement based on GRG Stripe, Quattro G trade dress, Square G, and Script Gucci/Guess marks and seeks injunctive relief, damages, and profits accounting.
- Gucci and Guess engaged in discovery; court separated Dauber expert exclusion from summary judgment.
- Gucci’s confusion surveys and dilution surveys were admitted for limited purposes; most post-sale confusion issues remain fact-intensive.
- Court denies most of Guess’s summary judgment motions but grants partial relief on monetary damages for certain dilution claims.
- Final ruling: summary judgment denied on most issues; limited grant of summary judgment on monetary relief related to Square G and Quattro G dilution claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-sale confusion sufficiency | Gucci argues post-sale confusion supports liability under Polaroid factors. | Guess contends absence of actual post-sale confusion defeats likelihood of confusion. | Gucci's post-sale claims survive summary judgment; Polaroid factors weighed. |
| Monetary relief for dilution of Square G and Quattro G | Gucci seeks damages and profits for dilution caused by Square G and Quattro G. | Guess seeks summary judgment on monetary relief for these designs. | Judgment for Guess on monetary relief for Square G and Quattro G dilution claims; no monetary relief grant. |
| Dilution standards for other marks | Pham and others show likelihood/actual dilution for multiple designs. | No credible dilution impact shown for some marks. | Partial denial of dilution summary judgment; some claims survive, others granted. |
| Laches and knowledge for Square G | Gucci asserts no laches defeat due to knowledge issues and timing. | Guess asserts laches bars claims for Square G. | Material facts exist regarding Gucci's knowledge; laches defense not established on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (Polaroid factors govern likelihood of confusion analysis)
- Mastercrafters Clock & Radio Co. v. Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc., 221 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1955) (early framework for post-sale confusion analysis)
- Hermes Int’l v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc., 219 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2000) (corrects weighing of Polaroid factors in dilution/context)
- Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) (illustrates general balancing in confusion and dilution analyses)
- Lang v. Retirement Living Pub. Co., Inc., 949 F.2d 576 (2d Cir. 1991) (discusses the nature of actual confusion in post-sale context)
- Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959) (registration negates lack of knowledge defense for pre-registration infringement)
- George Basch Co., Inc. v. Blue Coral, Inc., 968 F.2d 1532 (2d Cir. 1992) (standards for accounting of profits and willful deceptiveness)
- Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (discussion of dilution and related equitable remedies)