Poison Spider Bicycles v. Tap Manufacturing, 2:16-cv-00148

Poison Spyder Customs (PSC), founded 2002 and later acquired by TAP, sells customized off-road Jeep parts nationwide and uses the "Poison Spyder/Poison Spyder Customs" marks and a stylized spider logo; branded apparel comprises ~2% of PSC/TAP sales.
Poison Spider Bicycles (Plaintiff), a Moab, Utah bike shop, uses the name derived from the local Poison Spider Mesa trail and registered "Poison Spider Bicycles" for retail bike services and apparel; it does not sell off-road vehicle parts.
Both parties derived their names from the same geographic trail; PSC spells "Spyder" with a "y." The parties use visually different spider logos and target distinct niche markets (Jeep/off-road vs. cycling).
Defendants moved for summary judgment on federal and state trademark infringement and dilution claims, Utah unfair competition, and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act; the court considered undisputed facts and plaintiff's deficient opposite filings.
The court found no evidence of widespread actual confusion (only two anecdotal instances), no showing that plaintiff’s mark is nationally "famous" for dilution, and no proof of unlawful/unfair business practices or consumer-transaction injury under state statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trademark infringement / unfair competition (likelihood of confusion)	Plaintiff argued PSC/TAP's use of "Poison Spyder"/logo causes confusion with its "Poison Spider Bicycles" mark, including via apparel and internet listings	Defendants argued marks differ in spelling, appearance, market, channels, and consumer base; minimal apparel sales and no intent to enter bicycle market	Court: No likelihood of confusion; summary judgment for Defendants
Trademark dilution (federal and Utah)	Plaintiff claimed its mark is famous and PSC's use dilutes its mark	Defendants: Plaintiff's mark is not widely recognized beyond local/niche market and lacks statutory "fame" required for dilution	Court: Plaintiff failed to show national fame; summary judgment for Defendants
Utah Unfair Competition Act (infringement-plus)	Plaintiff alleged Defendants intentionally traded on its goodwill via internet/SEO to divert searches and sales	Defendants: No evidence of intentional unfair practice or of metadata/SEO manipulation; plaintiff produced unauthenticated screenshots and speculation	Court: No evidence of "unfair/ unlawful" conduct beyond trademark claim; summary judgment for Defendants
Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act	Plaintiff alleged deceptive practices in connection with consumer transactions	Defendants: No consumer transaction or cognizable consumer loss shown	Court: Statute inapplicable; no admissible evidence of consumer harm; summary judgment for Defendants

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co., 251 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial summary judgment burden and nonmovant must show genuine factual dispute)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue for trial)
Matsushita Elec. Indust. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant cannot rely on metaphysical doubt)
King of the Mtn. Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999) (multi-factor test for likelihood of confusion)
Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. AT&T, 22 F.3d 1527 (10th Cir. 1994) (likelihood-of-confusion analysis and de minimis actual confusion)
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002) (value of surveys and actual confusion evidence)
Big Dog Motorcycles, LLC v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (D. Kan. 2005) (impact of differing logos/mark presentations and limited apparel sales on confusion analysis)
Vail Assocs. v. Vend-Tel-Co., Ltd., 516 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2008) (strength of mark analysis and limits of incontestable registration)