Lucky's Detroit, LLC v. Double L, Inc., 533 F. App'x 553

Background

Double L, Inc. (Double L) operates multiple "Lucky’s" restaurants (Lucky’s Steak House) in Michigan, using the marks since 1998 and federally registered for "restaurant services."
Lucky’s Detroit, LLC (LD) operates three "Lucky’s Pub & Grille" restaurants in Detroit area (first opened 2008–2009; a Southfield location opened in 2010 during litigation).
Double L sent a cease-and-desist in 2009 after alleged customer confusion; LD sued for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and abandonment; Double L counterclaimed for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and state law.
After motions and discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to Double L on liability and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting LD from using "Lucky’s" or "Lucky’s Pub and Grille." LD appealed.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed likelihood of confusion under the eight Frisch factors, assessed affirmative defenses (estoppel and unclean hands), and affirmed the injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (LD)	Defendant's Argument (Double L)	Held
Whether LD’s use of "Lucky’s" is likely to cause confusion (likelihood of confusion / Frisch factors)	Marks are common/ descriptive; differences ("Pub & Grille" v. "Steak House") and different ambiance reduce confusion	Double L’s mark is strong and commercially recognized; services are related; marks similar; evidence of confusion and expansion increases likelihood	Court affirmed likelihood of confusion — most Frisch factors favor Double L (strength, similarity, relatedness, expansion); irreparable harm shown
Strength / distinctiveness of Double L’s marks (including incontestable status)	Mark is a personal name/descriptive; market is "crowded" with other "Lucky’s" uses	Mark is arbitrary to consumers and has incontestable federal registration and local commercial strength	Court: marks are conceptually and commercially strong; incontestable status precludes a mere-descriptive challenge
Whether Double L is estopped by prior PTO statements (prosecution history / waiver)	Double L’s USPTO filings acknowledged limited scope for "Lucky/ Lucky’s" marks and should bar broader enforcement	Prior PTO statements did not conflict with current position because Double L sought exclusivity for similar services; no detrimental reliance	Court: estoppel/prosecution-history argument fails; PTO statements not inconsistent with suit and LD showed no detrimental reliance
Whether unclean hands bars relief	Double L made misleading representations and seeks inequitable relief	No evidence Double L engaged in fraud, deceit, or bad faith related to this dispute	Court: unclean hands defense rejected; no proof of misconduct related to the matter

Key Cases Cited

Sec’y of Labor, U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. 3Re.com, Inc., 317 F.3d 534 (6th Cir.) (standards for review of permanent injunction)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor permanent injunction framework)
Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir.) (eight-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)
Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir.) (view marks in marketplace context; ultimate confusion question)
Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir.) (conceptual vs. commercial strength of marks)
Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623 (6th Cir.) (assessing strength despite incontestable registration)
Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir.) (weight of actual confusion evidence)
Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) (incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive)
Leelanau Wine Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 502 F.3d 504 (6th Cir.) (evidence required for actual confusion / secondary meaning)
Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373 (6th Cir.) (unclean hands doctrine in trademark injunctive relief)