True Fit Corporation v. True & Co.
1:12-cv-11006
D. Mass.Mar 4, 2013Background
- True Fit sued True & Co. for trademark infringement seeking a preliminary injunction to bar marks containing “true” used with personalized fit services.
- True Fit provides online and retailer-partnered fit-finder services (Find Your True Fit, True Fit, etc.) beginning 2005, later via Macy’s and Nordstrom.
- True & Co. formed in 2011 as a lingerie retailer; registered domains including yourtruefit.com and trueandco.com; initially operated as Bra & Co.
- True Fit sent a cease-and-desist on May 18, 2012 alleging TRUEFIT and related marks infringe; True & Co. launched trueandco.com on May 30, 2012, removing its TRUEFIT mark but keeping “true.”
- Court applies preliminary injunction standard requiring likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest; outcome hinges on infringement likelihood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether True Fit’s marks are protectable and distinctive | True Fit argues marks are evocative/suggestive and merit protection via secondary meaning | Marks are descriptive; True Fit failed to prove secondary meaning for many marks | Only FIND YOUR TRUE FIT, TRUE FIT, and TRUE TO YOU show secondary meaning; others unprotectable |
| Whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion | Marks and services may cause confusion due to use of 'true' and presence in online retail contexts | Different services, markets, and channels reduce confusion; lingerie vs. denim; different business models | Overall, seven of eight Polaroid factors weigh for absence of likelihood of confusion; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Equine Techs., Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc., 68 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 1995) (descriptive marks and source association analysis)
- Boston Beer Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 175 (1st Cir. 1993) (secondary meaning required for descriptive marks)
- President & Trs. of Colby Coll. v. Colby Coll.-N.H., 508 F.2d 804 (1st Cir. 1975) (test for secondary meaning in descriptive marks)
- Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2004) (definition of secondary meaning and evidentiary standards)
- J. & J. Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (family of marks concept; public perception requirement)
- Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482 (1st Cir. 1981) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion)