In a decision last week, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling in a trademark case in favor of the defendant, finding the defendant's use of the vanity telephone number "1-800-SKI-VAIL" for marketing services relating to the ski industry was not likely to be confused with the Plaintiff's service mark registration for "VAIL" encompassing the gamut of commercial recreational activities and accompanying amenities available in and around the Town of Vail, Colorado.  In so holding, the court found no error in the district court's holding that the ordinary consumer did not associate the word "VAIL" exclusively, if at all, with the Plaintiff VA or its ski resort, and that VA's evidence of actual confusion lacked credibility.  In a spirited dissent, Judge Tymkovich argued that the totality of factors strongly confirmed that the Defendant's mark was likely to cause consumer confusion.

More detail of Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co. after the jump.

[More]

In a decision last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that use of the mark "Chateau de Leelanau Vineyard and Winery" did not create a likelihood of confusion among consumers with the plaintiff's "Leelanau Cellars" federally-registered mark.  "Leelanau" in both marks is a reference to a peninsula in Michigan where the wine is produced.  While the district court erred by not affording the plaintiff's geographically descriptive mark the statutory presumption of secondary meaning, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling on the ground that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

More detail of Leelanau Wine Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc. after the jump.

[More]