Jenzabar, Inc. v. Long Bow Group, Inc.
977 N.E.2d 75
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Jenzabar holds the federal word mark JENZABAR for software and related functions; Long Bow operates an educational film nonprofit in Massachusetts.
- Long Bow created a Jenzabar page on tsquare.tv linking to information about Jenzabar; after Chai Ling, founder of Jenzabar, was connected to the page, Long Bow added a page about Jenzabar.
- Google search results for Jenzabar consistently displayed Long Bow’s Jenzabar page on the first page since 2006, with a title ‘Jenzabar’ and a description copied from the page.
- Jenzabar complained in 2007 about the use of its mark in Long Bow’s title, URL, and meta tags; Long Bow amended pages and added disclaimers stating no affiliation with Jenzabar.
- Jenzabar filed an eight-count complaint—defamation, trade libel, trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition; the trial court granted summary judgment to Long Bow on the trademark-related counts.
- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for trademark infringement, dilution, and 93A, and remanded attorney’s fees to the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Long Bow’s use of JENZABAR created likelihood of confusion | Jenzabar argues initial interest confusion via trademark keywords in meta tags and listing as likely to mislead. | Long Bow contends no actionable confusion; unrelated goods and sophisticated customers reduce likelihood of confusion. | No likelihood of confusion; summary judgment for Long Bow affirmed. |
| Whether Long Bow’s dilution of Jenzabar's mark occurred | Jenzabar asserts dilution by associating its mark with Long Bow’s site and content. | Long Bow argues no dilution because its use reinforces the mark by referring to Jenzabar itself and not to inferior products. | Dilution claim fails; affirmed. |
| Whether c. 93A unfair or deceptive acts extend Long Bow's conduct | Jenzabar contends 93A covers misleading internet conduct beyond trademark law. | Long Bow maintains truthful commentary and no unfair practice; 93A claim lacking deception. | No 93A violation; dismissed with others. |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded to Long Bow | Remanded to Superior Court to decide attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of N.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327 (Mass. 2011) (summary judgment standard de novo)
- Nora Bevs., Inc. v. Perrier Group of America, Inc., 269 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2001) (likelihood of confusion requires substantial evidence)
- Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002) (initial interest confusion factors; importance of relatedness and care)
- Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002) (initial interest confusion framework; six-factor test)
- Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., 269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001) (initial interest confusion factors; importance of related goods and consumer care)