United States Polo Ass'n v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
800 F. Supp. 2d 515
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- USPA seeks declaratory judgments that it may license and sell USPA fragrance products using U.S. POLO ASSN. and Double Horsemen marks; PRL/L’Oréal counterclaims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution seeking injunction.
- Case involves PRL Polo marks (Polo Player Logo and POLO) vs USPA Double Horsemen/USPA marks in fragrances (Class 3); parties dispute likelihood of confusion and branding scope.
- Trial held Sept. 2010; final decision denied USPA’s declaratory relief and granted PRL’s permanent injunction.
- Judge Sweet applies Polaroid factors to assess likelihood of confusion; evidence includes expert surveys (Mantis, Helfgott) and packaging/branding.
- 1984 Sand Order and subsequent apparel litigation impact but are not controlling for the fragrance context; USPA ceased blue trade dress and focused on beige packaging during litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act sections 32 & 43(a) | PRL marks are strong and protectable; USPA infringing via similar double-horseman design. | USPA argues non-confusing market context and distinct product lines. | Yes; strong likelihood of confusion established under Polaroid factors. |
| Validity and protectability of PRL marks | PRL owns valid registered Polo Player Logo and POLO marks; inherently distinctive/arbitrary. | None stated succinctly here; court weighed but ultimately upheld validity. | PRL marks are valid and protectable. |
| Applicability of eBay/Salinger standard to permanent injunctions in trademark cases | eBay/Salinger standard should govern injunctive relief in trademark action. | Traditional equitable considerations suffice? (not explicit in text) | eBay/Salinger four-factor standard applied to injunction. |
| Irreparable harm and balance of hardships | Loss of PRL reputation and goodwill constitutes irreparable harm without injunction. | USPA interests and market entry weigh against injunction. | PRL suffers irreparable harm; balance weighs in favor of injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) (foundation for Polaroid framework and mark strength)
- Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc., 192 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinctiveness scale; Abercrombie continuum)
- Genesee Brewing Co., Inc. v. Stroh Brewing Co., 124 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1997) (distinctiveness and protectability of marks)
- Paco Sport, Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Perfumes, 234 F.3d 1262 (2d Cir. 2000) (assessing mark similarity and likelihood of confusion)
- Virgin Enterprises v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2003) (two-prong test for proving infringement under Lanham Act)