Suntree Technologies, Inc. v. Ecosense International, Inc.
693 F.3d 1338
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Suntree markets NJCAT-certified baffle boxes for stormwater treatment and positions the NJCAT certification as a selling point.
- Ecosense also manufactures baffle boxes and was approved to substitute in the CWM Project bid process.
- The City of West Melbourne’s bidding documents allowed “or equal” substitutions and delegated approval to the project engineer.
- Derrico submitted a bid listing Suntree as supplier but planned to substitute Ecosense’s products post-award.
- Suntree alleged Derrico’s bid and Ecosense’s training materials falsely designated origin or misled buyers, constituting infringement and unfair competition.
- Ecosense destroyed most copies of a promotional brochure depicting Suntree’s boxes, retaining one exemplar for litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Derrico directly infringed Suntree’s mark in the CWM bid | Suntree claims Derrico listed Suntree to win and planned to substitute Ecosense, infringing Suntree’s rights. | Derrico complied with bid rules; substitution permitted after award; no intentional confusion. | No direct infringement; Derrico intended substitution but did not deceive; no likelihood of confusion. |
| Whether Ecosense and Dussich contributed to infringement | Ecosense and Dussich induced Derrico to infringe Suntree’s mark by listing Suntree and coordinating substitution. | No evidence of intentional inducement or knowledge of infringement by Ecosense/Dussich. | No contributory infringement; no evidence of intent to deceive. |
| Whether Ecosense’s brochure and maintenance presentation caused false designation of origin or false advertising | Photos of Suntree’s boxes in Ecosense materials misrepresented origin and could deceive engineers and buyers. | Ecosense destroyed the brochure quickly; no evidence of confusion; materials not disseminated as advertising. | No likelihood of confusion; no actionable false designation of origin or false advertising. |
| Whether Suntree’s FDUPTA claim merits relief | Unfair competition and deceptive practices occurred via misleading designations and advertising. | FDUPTA standards mirror Lanham Act; no genuine confusion or misrepresentation proven. | FDUPTA claim failed in light of lack of confusion and dissemination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2011) (am British likelihood-of-confusion framework; similarity assessments align with Lanham Act)
- Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2010) ( Lanham Act proof requires likely confusion; framework applied)
- Custom Mfg. and Eng’g, Inc. v. Midway Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (likelihood-of-confusion analysis governs Lanham and FDUPTA claims)
- Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001) (use of federal infringement standards to evaluate state unfair competition claims)
- AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1986) (AmBrit test factors for likelihood of confusion; factors including actual confusion and similarity)
- Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 122 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 1997) (importance of factors including strength, similarity, and actual confusion)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2003) (reverse passing off concept; origin misrepresentation considerations)