ComponentOne LLC v. ComponentArt, Inc.

Lawrence R. Robins

Practice Area:Intellectual Property

Outcome:Summary Judgment for Defendant on All Counts

Description:The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Finnegan client ComponentArt Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by ComponentOne LLC for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy. ComponentOne sought an injunction and monetary damages based on ComponentArt's use of the mark and name COMPONENTART in connection with the sale of software components. The court extensively analyzed the likelihood-of-confusion factors, and found that they weighed in favor of ComponentArt. In doing so, the court ruled that plaintiff's evidence of actual confusion was flimsy and de minimis, its confusion survey was fundamentally flawed, its mark was conceptually weak and it had not established secondary meaning, and there was no issue of material fact regarding the similarities between the marks COMPONENTART and COMPONENTONE because the shared term "component" is generic and there are "rank differences" between the operative terms "One" and "Art." Finnegan earlier obtained summary judgment for ComponentArt on plaintiff's federal and state dilution claims based solely on a claim of niche-market fame, and the firm successfully obtained dismissal of three other defendants based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.