625 F.Supp.3d 684
N.D. Ohio2022Background
- Hydrojug, a Utah-based seller of 64‑oz “Hydrojug” bottles since 2016, owns federal trademarks (HYDROJUG family) and a design patent for its bottle lid (’202 patent).
- Gossi designed and supplied a look‑alike “Aquajug” to Five Below after examining a Hydrojug; ~150,000 version 1 Aquajugs with looped lids shipped to Five Below in early 2022.
- Five Below began selling Aquajug (retail $5) in March 2022; Hydrojug received numerous social‑media comments showing actual consumer confusion and complaints about product quality.
- Hydrojug sued Five Below and Gossi (trademark and patent claims) and moved for a preliminary injunction; hearing held Aug. 17, 2022.
- The court found a strong likelihood Hydrojug would prevail on trademark infringement (versions 1–2) and on design‑patent infringement as to version 1 looped lids, granted a PI enjoining sale/use of versions 1–2 and confusing marks, but denied relief as to a redesigned version 3 logo/lid.
- Court required Hydrojug to post a $10,000 bond and ordered Defendants to report compliance within three days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of trademark infringement (versions 1–2) | Hydrojug: owns marks; Aquajug mark/design copied and causes consumer confusion (social media evidence, similar logos, intentional copying). | Defendants: deny likelihood of confusion; argue third‑party use weakens mark and differences exist. | Court: Hydrojug likely to succeed; multiple Frisch factors (strength, similarity, actual confusion, intent) favor Hydrojug. |
| Design‑patent infringement (looped lid, version 1) | Hydrojug: Aquajug lids are substantially the same; ordinary‑observer test met; Gossi knew of patent. | Defendants: largely did not contest infringement at PI stage. | Court: Hydrojug likely to succeed on patent claim for version 1 lids; ordered injunction against making/selling accused lids (versions 1–2). |
| Irreparable harm (prelim. injunction element) | Hydrojug: harm to brand, goodwill, control over mark; social‑media confusion and misdirected complaints not fully compensable by money. | Defendants: claim delay and limited inventory rebut irreparable harm. | Court: Lanham Act presumption applies; harm shown and not rebutted—irreparable injury found. |
| Scope re redesigned Aquajug (version 3) & Safe‑Distance Rule | Hydrojug: version 3 is still a colorable imitation and should be barred (invoking Safe‑Distance Rule). | Defendants: version 3 is materially different; Safe‑Distance Rule not applicable at PI stage. | Court: denied injunction as to version 3 — marks and logo are sufficiently dissimilar; Safe‑Distance Rule not applied at preliminary stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (preliminary injunction factors in trademark/unfair competition context)
- Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997) (actual confusion is powerful evidence of likelihood of confusion)
- AWGI, LLC v. Atlas Trucking Co., LLC, 998 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2021) (application of multi‑factor confusion test)
- Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2002) (intentional copying as evidence of secondary meaning)
- Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (patent infringement is a strict‑liability offense under §271)
- Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 705 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (ordinary‑observer test for design‑patent infringement)
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (public interest in preventing consumer confusion under trademark law)