Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 20-50323
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Future Proof Brands, L.L.C.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`Molson Coors Beverage Company, Formerly Known As Molson Coors
`Brewing Company, and MillerCoors, L.L.C.,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas
`Honorable James R. Nowlin, Senior U.S. District Judge
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David S. Coale
`dcoale@lynnllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Christopher J. Schwegmann
`cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
`
`
`Kent D. Krabill
`
`
`
`kkrabill@lynnllp.com
`
`
`
`
`Chisara Ezie-Boncoeur
`
`
`
`cezie-boncoeur@lynnllp.com
`
`Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, LLP
`2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`214-981-3800 – Telephone
`214-981-3839 – Facsimile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kirby Cronin
`kcronin@croninpllc.com
`Cronin PLLC
`4301 Westbank Drive
`Building B, Suite 270
`Austin, Texas 78746
`512-703-1400 – Telephone
`
`
`Attorneys for Appellant
`
`
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Identity of Parties and Counsel
`
`The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed
`
`persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1
`
`have an interest in the outcome of this case. Those representations are made
`
`in order that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification
`
`or recusal.
`
`1. Appellant:
`
`2.
`
`Counsel for Appellant:
`
`3. Appellees:
`
`
`Future Proof Brands, LLC
`
`David S. Coale
`Christopher J. Schwegmann
`Kent D. Krabill
`Chisara Ezie-Boncoeur
`Lynn Pinker Hurst &
`Schwegmann, LLP
`2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`Kirby Cronin
`Cronin PLLC
`4301 Westbank Drive
`Building B, Suite 270
`Austin, Texas 78746
`
`Molson Coors Beverage
`Company F/K/A/ Molson
`Coors Brewing Company,
`and MillerCoors, LLC
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`4.
`
`Counsel for Appellees:
`
`
`
`
`
`Pete Marketos
`Brett S. Rosenthal
`Reese Marketos LLP
`750 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 600
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`Christopher Cole
`Mark Klapow
`Vincent Galluzzo
`Crowell & Moring, LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`
`
`/s/ David S. Coale____________________
`David S. Coale
`Attorney for Appellant
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Statement Regarding Oral Argument
`
`This appeal turns on basic principles of trademark law, calling for a
`
`careful and comprehensive analysis of the likelihood-of-confusion factors as
`
`defined by this Circuit. Appellant respectfully submits that oral argument
`
`would help the Court conduct its review of the law and relevant record.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Identity of Parties and Counsel ............................................................................. 2
`
`Statement Regarding Oral Argument .................................................................. 4
`
`Table of Contents .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Jurisdictional Statement .......................................................................................11
`
`Abbreviations and Record References ...............................................................12
`
`Issues Presented ....................................................................................................13
`
`Introduction ...........................................................................................................15
`
`Statement of the Case ...........................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`Factual background ..........................................................................16
`
`1.
`
`Future Proof builds the “Brizzy” mark ..............................16
`
`2. Molson Coors and its new “Vizzy” drink ..........................19
`
`B.
`
`This litigation ....................................................................................21
`
`Summary of the Argument ..................................................................................24
`
`Argument ...............................................................................................................27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The trial court erred in its application of this Court’s
`standards for determining the strength of a mark. .....................29
`
`The trial court erred in evaluating the products’
`similarity. ...........................................................................................37
`
`The trial court erred in its evaluation of actual
`confusion. ...........................................................................................41
`
`5
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The trial court erred in its evaluation of the degree of
`care and intent factors. .....................................................................43
`
`The remaining Rule 65 factors support injunctive
`relief. ...................................................................................................45
`
`Conclusion ..............................................................................................................51
`
`Certificate of Service .............................................................................................53
`
`Certificate of Compliance ....................................................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir.
`1976) ..............................................................................................................30
`
`Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 708 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2013) ...........................46
`
`Alliance for Good Gov’t v. Coalition for Better Gov’t, 901 F.3d 498, 507-
`508 (5th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................30
`
`Am. Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2008)
` .......................................................................................................................29
`
`Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage, 608 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.
`2010) ..............................................................................................................31
`
`Bd of Supervisors for Louisiana State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v.
`Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008) .......................... 24, 28, 29
`
`Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 408 F. Supp.
`1219 (D. Colo. 1976) ....................................................................................47
`
`Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365
`(10th Cir. 1977) ............................................................................................47
`
`Blendco, Inc. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 132 F. Appx. 520 (5th Cir. 2005)
` ................................................................................................................ 32, 33
`
`Capital Films Corp. v. Charles Fries Productions, Inc., 628 F.2d 387
`(5th Cir. 1980) ..............................................................................................47
`
`Chevron Chem. Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Grps., Inc., 659 F.2d 695
`(5th Cir. Unit A 1981) .................................................................................38
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000)...............43
`
`Elvis Presley Enters. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998) ...................... passim
`
`7
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Engineered Tax Services, Inc. v. Scarpello Consulting, Inc., 958 F.3d
`1323 n. 10 (11th Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................33
`
`Fantastic Sams Franchisee Corp. v. Moseley, No. H-16-2318, 2016 WL
`7426403 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2016) ..............................................................49
`
`Fuji Photo Film Co., Inc. v. Shinohara Shoji Kabushiki Kaisha, 754 F.2d
`591 (5th Cir. 1985) .......................................................................................42
`
`Goodyear Tire Rubber v. Big O Tire Dealers, 434 U.S. 1052 (1978) .....................47
`
`Gruma Corp. v. Mexican Restaurants, Inc., 497 F. Appx. 392
`(5th Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................................38
`
`Heil Trailer Int’l Co. v. Kula, 542 F. Appx. 329 (5th Cir. 2013) ..........................46
`
`KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S.
`111 (2004) ......................................................................................................32
`
`Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728
`(Fed. Cir. 1968) ..................................................................................... 39, 40
`
`La. World Exposition v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1984) ............................41
`
`Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1991) ...........................................49
`
`Marathon Mfg. Co. v. Enerlite Prods. Corp., 767 F.2d 214
`(5th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................... 38, 41
`
`Myo, LLC v. Brull & York, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-370-RP, 2019 WL
`136820 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019) .................................................................36
`
`Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enters., Inc., 783 F.3d 527
`(5th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................30
`
`Paulsson Geophysical Servs., Inc. v. Sigmar, 529 F.3d 303
`(5th Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................... 27, 47
`
`8
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`PlayNation Play Systems, Inc. v. Velex Corporation, 924 F.3d 1159
`(11th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................35
`
`Quantum Fitness Corp. v. Quantum LifeStyle Ctrs., LLC, 83 F. Supp.
`2d 810 (S.D. Tex. 1999)................................................................................50
`
`Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1975) ...................................28
`
`Society of Financial Examiners v. National Ass'n of Certified Fraud
`Examiners Inc., 41 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 1995) ...............................................42
`
`Streamline Prod. Sys. v. Streamline Mfg., 851 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2017)
` ................................................................................................................ 30, 41
`
`Sun Banks of Fla, Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 651 F.2d 311
`(5th Cir. 1981) ..............................................................................................36
`
`TGI Friday’s Inc. v. Great Northwest Restaurants, Inc., 625 F. Supp.
`2d 763 (N.D. Tex. 2009) ..............................................................................49
`
`Union Nat’l Bank v. Union Nat’l Bank, 909 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 1990) ................37
`
`Viacom Int'l, v. IJR Capital Investments, L.L.C., 891 F.3d 178
`(5th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................... 41, 45
`
`Waples-Platter Cos. v. Gen. Foods Corp., 439 F. Supp. 551, 575
`(N.D. Tex. 1977) ...........................................................................................29
`
`Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc. 576 F.3d 221
`(5th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786
`(5th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 32, 33, 34
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 ....................................................................................................11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1292 ......................................................................................................11
`
`9
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`The Lanham Act ....................................................................................... 46, 49, 50
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (5th Ed. 2020) ........ 33, 47
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th Ed. 2001) ...............46
`
`Rules
`
`5th Cir. R. 28.2.1 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) .........................................................................................54
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) .........................................................................................54
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)....................................................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`Jurisdictional Statement
`
`This action arises under federal trademark law, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et
`
`seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the trial court’s denial of a preliminary
`
`
`
`
`
`injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviations and Record References
`
`“Future Proof” refers to Appellant Future Proof Brands, LLC.
`
`“Molson Coors” collectively refers to Appellees Molson Coors
`
`
`
`
`
`Beverage Company F/K/A Molson Coors Brewing Company, and
`
`MillerCoors, LLC.
`
`
`
`“BRIZZY” refers to the registered trademark for the word mark
`
`BRIZZY owned by Future Proof, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,933,791,
`
`for use on “alcoholic beverages, except beer; alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks;
`
`[and] prepared alcoholic cocktails.” “Brizzy®” refers to the hard seltzer
`
`products sold to consumers using the BRIZZY mark.
`
`
`
`“VIZZY” refers to MillerCoors LLC’s trademark application for the
`
`word mark VIZZY, serial number 88631785, for use on “[a]lcoholic
`
`beverages, except beer” and “[b]eer.” “Vizzy” refers to the hard seltzer
`
`products marketed by Molson Coors bearing the VIZZY mark.
`
`“PTO” refers to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
` Issues Presented
`
`Future Proof registered the trademark BRIZZY for its hard seltzer
`
`drink product. Molson Coors began to market a competing hard seltzer
`
`drink under the name VIZZY. Future Proof sued for a preliminary injunction
`
`against that trademark infringement. The trial court denied Future Proof’s
`
`application, finding insufficient evidence of a likelihood of confusion.
`
`Future Proof appeals that denial. The overarching question is whether
`
`the trial court erred in applying the factors defined by this Court for
`
`evaluating a likelihood of confusion, which in turn presents four specific
`
`issues:
`
`1.
`
`Strength of plaintiff’s mark. Whether the trial court erred by
`
`using the wrong legal standard to classify BRIZZY as merely “descriptive of
`
`fizzy products” and therefore “weak”;
`
`2.
`
`Similarity of marks. Whether the trial court erred by focusing on
`
`certain visual differences in the product packaging, over the overwhelming
`
`visual and aural similarities between the marks;
`
`13
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Actual confusion between marks. Whether the trial court erred
`
`by using the wrong legal standard when it rejected evidence of actual
`
`confusion among product wholesalers, especially when there has been little
`
`or no opportunity yet for confusion among consumers; and
`
`4. Weight for degree of care and intent. Whether the trial court
`
`erred in how it evaluated two other relevant factors—customers’ degree of
`
`care and Molson Coors’s intent—against Future Proof’s request for an
`
`injunction.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`Future Proof makes a successful “hard seltzer” drink, for which it
`
`sought and obtained the registered trademark BRIZZY. After seeing Future
`
`Proof’s success, Molson Coors began to make its own hard seltzer drink,
`
`called VIZZY. That name is textbook trademark infringement—a mark
`
`nearly identical in sight and sound to BRIZZY, on the exact same type of
`
`hard seltzer products, in the exact same category of goods, and in the exact
`
`same channels of trade. The mark was clearly calculated to confuse the
`
`market and ruin Future Proof’s business; indeed, Future Proof showed that
`
`Molson Coors’s pre-launch promotion of the Vizzy products has already
`
`caused confusion in the marketplace.
`
`Future Proof sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Molson
`
`Coors, the junior user of this confusingly-similar trademark, from swamping
`
`the national market with misleading advertising and product placement.
`
`The trial court denied Future Proof’s application, despite acknowledging
`
`that three of the relevant likelihood-of-confusion factors “increase the
`
`likelihood of confusion,” and that a fourth also weighs in favor of granting
`
`15
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`the injunction. In so doing, the trial court misapplied this Court’s precedents
`
`that define and implement the likelihood-of-confusion factors. Proper
`
`application of those standards to the undisputed facts compels a finding in
`
`Future Proof’s favor about the likelihood of confusion, and the conclusion
`
`that Future Proof is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claim.
`
`Statement of the Case
`
`A.
`
`Factual background
`
`1.
`
`Future Proof builds the “Brizzy” mark
`
`Inspired by the entrepreneurial spirit of Austin, Texas, the founders of
`
`Future Proof sought to develop innovative alcoholic beverages for the next
`
`generation of drinkers. (ROA.78.) In 2014, only one year after the business’s
`
`formation, the three young founders of what is now known as Future
`
`Proof—Justin Fenchel, Brad Schultz, and Aimy Steadman—pitched their
`
`beverage business, BeatBox, on the popular ”Shark Tank” television show.
`
`(ROA.78.) They later walked away with a $1 million investment from Mark
`
`Cuban, in one of the biggest investments the show had made at the time.
`
`(ROA.78.)
`
`16
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Future Proof quickly developed a reputation in the industry and with
`
`its customers as a company that creates innovative and distinctive products
`
`for the millennial consumer. (ROA.78-79.) The meteoric rise of the hard
`
`seltzer category has been nothing short of a phenomenon for the US
`
`beverage industry. (ROA.79.) Within the last five years, hard seltzers have
`
`grown to account for nearly half of all US mixed drinks and have led to
`
`massive innovation within the flavored malt beverage, wine, and spirit-
`
`based ready-to-drink sparkling beverages. (ROA.79.)
`
`On September 1, 2019, Future Proof launched the Brizzy® product line
`
`with three mixology infused flavors: Watermelon Mule, Mixed Berry Mojito,
`
`and Strawberry Rosé. (ROA.79.) Future Proof partnered with the H-E-B
`
`grocery chain, where the Brizzy® products are now available to consumers
`
`at approximately 200 H-E-B locations in Texas. (ROA.79.) In addition, the
`
`Brizzy® products can be found in approximately 200 Circle K stores, 12
`
`Kroger’s stores, and over 500 other locations. (ROA.79.) In the first ninety
`
`days after the launch, the Brizzy® products have been purchased by over
`
`1,000 retail locations across four states. (ROA.79.)
`
`17
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`To promote and protect its intellectual property, Future Proof
`
`registered the BRIZZY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (Trademark Registration No. 5,933,791). (ROA.79-80, 86-90.) As a
`
`result, Future Proof became the owner of exclusive rights in the BRIZZY
`
`mark for use on “alcoholic beverages, except beer; alcoholic fruit cocktail
`
`drinks; [and] prepared alcoholic cocktails.” (ROA.79-80.) Future Proof uses
`
`the BRIZZY mark in connection with the advertisement and sale of its hard
`
`seltzer products, including products shown below:
`
`
`
`(ROA.80.)
`
`The Brizzy® products are popular with consumers. Future Proof has
`
`sold 11,400 cases of the Brizzy® products to distributors since September
`
`2019 alone. (ROA.80.) Current forecasts for revenue associated with the
`
`18
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 19 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Brizzy® products in 2020 exceed approximately $2,500,000, which include
`
`new retail locations in Kansas, Virginia, California, Georgia, Oklahoma,
`
`Colorado, and potentially even more states. (ROA.80.) As a result of Future
`
`Proof’s continuous and exclusive use of the BRIZZY mark, its reputation for
`
`quality, and its sales and recognition in the marketplace, Future Proof’s
`
`BRIZZY mark has acquired substantial value and goodwill. (ROA.80.)
`
`2. Molson Coors and its new “Vizzy” drink
`
`Molson Coors also sought to capture part of the booming hard seltzer
`
`market. To this end, it recently announced that it is investing “millions” in
`
`a new brand called “Vizzy,” a product it intends to launch across the United
`
`States, using a product name and concept nearly identical to Future Proof’s
`
`Brizzy® product. (ROA.80-81.) Molson Coors has released the following
`
`images of its Vizzy products:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 20 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`(ROA.81.)
`
`
`
`Molson Coors has already marketed its product extensively in national
`
`publications and at industry conferences using the VIZZY mark. As Dilini
`
`Fernando, Molson Coors’s Director of Portfolio & Brand Strategy, said in a
`
`press release about Vizzy, “[w]e’re moving fast and furious,” hoping “we’re
`
`catching this trend at the right time.” (ROA.81, 118-121, 218.) According to
`
`Fernando, Molson Coors also intends to launch a massive media blitz at the
`
`same time the Vizzy product hits the shelves, to include national television
`
`advertisements, digital marketing, and social and out-of-home advertising.
`
`(ROA.81, 120.) Again, according to Fernando, the Vizzy product has already
`
`secured major retail support at national and regional chains. (ROA.81, 120.)
`
`Molson Coors and its executives were keenly aware of Future Proof’s
`
`use of the BRIZZY mark when they launched their recent media blitz.
`
`(ROA.82.) In a recent quote for Beer Business Daily, Molson Coors admitted
`
`having reviewed Future Proof’s website and admitted that Future Proof’s
`
`Brizzy® products were already in distribution when Molson Coors decided
`
`on the Vizzy name. (ROA.122, 126.) At a minimum, from Molson Coors’s
`
`20
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 21 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`position in and awareness of the market, it is undisputed in this record that
`
`it had constructive notice of Future Proof’s catchy unique Brizzy name and
`
`product packaging, its distribution network, and its then-pending (and later
`
`registered) trademark, when Molson Coors decided to launch a competing
`
`product with a similar name. (ROA.82.)
`
`Molson Coors’s media blitz and its sales and marketing efforts have
`
`already caused significant confusion in the market, even before the product
`
`has been officially launched into the market. (ROA.83-84.). During annual
`
`sales meetings at the end of 2019, Molson Coors’s wholesalers expressed
`
`confusion about the two products to both Molson Coors and Future Proof.
`
`(ROA.82.) In addition, one of Future Proof’s largest wholesalers has
`
`expressed concern about the confusion that its sales team will experience
`
`when simultaneously selling and distributing Brizzy® products alongside
`
`the Vizzy product. (ROA.82.)
`
`B.
`
`This litigation
`
`Future Proof sought injunctive relief to prevent the catastrophic,
`
`irreparable harm that the release of the Vizzy product will cause to Future
`
`21
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 22 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Proof’s ongoing business. As Future Proof’s CEO explained, “if the Vizzy
`
`product launches, Brizzy® will be dead in the water.” (ROA.85.) It sought
`
`immediate injunctive relief to prohibit Molson Coors from, among other
`
`things, advertising or selling alcoholic beverages bearing the VIZZY mark or
`
`any other mark confusingly similar to BRIZZY.
`
`Future Proof asked for an evidentiary hearing. (ROA.73.) The trial
`
`court first scheduled a hearing to allow the presentation of evidence, but
`
`then cancelled it and instead issued an order denying Future Proof’s request
`
`for an injunction. (ROA.496, 501-10.) The trial court focused its analysis
`
`solely on the existence of a likelihood of confusion, and did not reach any of
`
`the other factors relevant to a grant of injunctive relief. (ROA.501-10.)
`
`The trial court’s application of the law on this topic creates the issues
`
`in this appeal. First, the trial court concluded that the “conceptual strength”
`
`of the BRIZZY mark is weak, based largely on its finding that the mark is
`
`“descriptive of a fizzy product.” (ROA.504-05.)1 Second, although it
`
`acknowledged the obvious similarities between the marks, the trial court
`
`1 See footnote five.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 23 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`instead focused on certain differences in the product packaging to support its
`
`belief that consumers would not see a similarity between the marks.
`
`(ROA.507.) Third, the trial court discounted evidence of actual confusion
`
`because the confusion occurred among wholesalers, not consumers, even
`
`though the Vizzy products had not yet launched and were not even available
`
`for purchase by consumers. (ROA.509.) Finally, the Court weighed the
`
`degree of care and intent factors as neutral and against the injunction,
`
`respectively, when they should have been considered in favor of and neutral,
`
`at worst. (ROA.508.) Future Proof appeals each of these conclusions as
`
`inconsistent with this Court’s precedent.
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 24 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Summary of the Argument
`
`Likelihood of confusion is typically analyzed by reference to eight
`
`“digits of confusion”: “(1) the type of mark allegedly infringed, (2) the
`
`similarity between the two marks, (3) the similarity of the products or
`
`services, (4) the identity of the retail outlets and purchasers, (5) the identity
`
`of the advertising media used, (6) the defendant’s intent, and (7) any
`
`evidence of actual confusion.” Bd of Supervisors for Louisiana State Univ. Agric.
`
`& Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465, 478 (5th Cir. 2008). Courts
`
`also consider “(8) the degree of care exercised by potential purchasers.”
`
`Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d at 478. “No single factor is dispositive, and a finding
`
`of likelihood of confusion need not be supported by a majority of the
`
`factors.” Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d at 478.
`
`The trial court correctly found that the third, fourth, and fifth factor
`
`weigh in favor of granting the injunction, and that the second factor “weighs
`
`only marginally in favor of granting the injunction.” (ROA.507.) The Court
`
`erred regarding the other factors as follows:
`
`24
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 25 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Strength of Mark. In two ways, the trial court applied the wrong legal
`
`standards to assess the distinctiveness of the mark. First, it ignored the
`
`presumption of validity that accompanies a registered trademark such as
`
`BRIZZY. Second, the trial court failed to consider any of the tests adopted by
`
`this Court to classify a trademark on the spectrum of distinctiveness. As a
`
`result, the trial court clearly erred in finding BRIZZY to be “descriptive of a
`
`fizzy product” and “weak.” (ROA.505-06.) That error alone requires reversal
`
`and reconsideration.
`
`Mark Similarity. The trial court erred by finding that this factor
`
`“weighs only marginally in favor of granting the injunction.” (ROA.507.) It
`
`improperly focused on certain visual differences in the product packaging,
`
`weighing them more than overwhelming visual and aural similarities
`
`between the marks and how they are used in the marketplace. (ROA.507.)
`
`Had the trial court properly focused on the similarities between the marks,
`
`as this Court’s precedent requires, it would have weighed this factor
`
`strongly in favor of an injunction.
`
`25
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 26 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Actual Confusion. The trial court acknowledged one instance of actual
`
`confusion by a wholesaler, but rejected it because “a wholesaler is not a
`
`consumer.” (ROA.509.) (emphasis in original). The trial court erred in
`
`reaching this conclusion. It is well-established in this Circuit that evidence
`
`of confusion among retailers and wholesalers is relevant and probative of a
`
`likelihood of confusion among consumers. This evidence of actual confusion
`
`is especially probative here because there has been little or no opportunity
`
`for confusion among consumers.
`
`Degree of Care by Consumers and Defendant’s Intent. Future Proof
`
`offered evidence that these beverages are low-cost products for which
`
`consumers typically make purchase decisions quickly. The trial court erred
`
`by finding that this factor “provides little or no relevance to the court’s
`
`determination.” (ROA.510.) And while the trial court found no evidence of
`
`intent, it nevertheless weighed this factor against granting the injunction.
`
`The trial court should have, at worst, determined that this factor is only
`
`neutral in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
`
`26
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 27 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Had the trial court applied the correct legal standards and properly
`
`weighed these factors, they would have compelled a different result. This
`
`Court should reverse, find that Future Proof is likely to succeed on the merits
`
`of its trademark claim, and remand for consideration of the remaining
`
`elements necessary for the imposition of injunctive relief.
`
`Argument
`
`
`
`The issues in this appeal are framed by a procedural rule and a
`
`substantive doctrine. Procedurally, this Court reviews the denial of a
`
`preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, examining “[e]ach of the four
`
`elements required to support a preliminary injunction … [as] a mixed
`
`question of fact and law.” Paulsson Geophysical Servs., Inc. v. Sigmar, 529 F.3d
`
`303, 306 (5th Cir. 2008). “Findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error;
`
`legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” Paulsson, 529 F.3d at 306.
`
`That said, the specific trademark-law topic of “likelihood of confusion” is
`
`often reviewed de novo. See Elvis Presley Enters. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 196,
`
`(5th Cir. 1998) (“When a likelihood-of-confusion factual finding is
`
`‘inextricably bound up’ in, or infected by, a district court’s erroneous view
`
`27
`
`

`

` Case: 20-50323 Document: 00515448354 Page: 28 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
`
`of the law, we may conduct a de novo review of the fully-developed record
`
`before us.”) (citing Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46-47 (5th Cir.
`
`
`
`
`
`1975)).
`
`
`
`Substantively, to succeed on a trademark infringement cla