United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019-08-02
15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Appeal from summary judgment for defendants; fair-use defense reviewed de novo; confusion was not adjudicated.; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
No basis precisely describes summary judgment establishing an affirmative defense: triable is only survival, proved suggests factfinding, and no-evidence cannot accompany satisfied. The fair-use block uses law with the limitation stated explicitly.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Statutory person including state entities and officials | Judicial domestic infringing-use limit | Use in commerce connected with goods or services | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship | Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | State sovereign immunity unless a valid route permits suit | Misleading affiliation approval or sponsorship | Claimant proves nonfunctionality | Commercial advertising or promotion | False or misleading factual representation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Judicial actual-deception or tendency-to-deceive requirement | Judicial materiality requirement for purchasing decisions | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | Judicial proximate-causation requirement | Remedy-specific proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory: Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith; subject: party=Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory=Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith All three defense prongs were sustained on summary judgment. [law] records the defense being legally established on a record viewed favorably to SportFuel; it does not signify trial factfinding or a concession. The DSL has no affirmative-defense summary-judgment-success basis. | descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan | In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [7033:7251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.The products' individual packaging and displays feature Gatorade's house mark and G Bolt logo more prominently.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [10646:10757] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regularly invoke the "Sports Fuel" terminology to describe the products they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of this widespread industry use to the district court, including, for example, Twin Laboratories' "SPORT FUEL" and Trident Sports' "SPORTS FUEL."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [16052:16370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Gatorade's stated purpose in adopting the challenged slogan was to help the company better describe its business and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actually contradicts this purpose.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [26582:26778] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a "TM" symbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slogan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [11267:11381] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Accordingly, we do not believe the district court erred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term "Sports Fuel" as a trademark in its "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" slogan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [12299:12486] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.We conclude that Gatorade's slogan uses "Sports Fuel" in a descriptive sense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [18007:18084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided sufficient evidence that it used the term "Sports Fuel" fairly and in good faith.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [26440:26581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251. |
| Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not reached (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsClaimed confusion supplies context only; the court resolves the case through fair use without deciding that confusion exists or is absent. | confusion/reverse-confusion | "To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers." CAE, Inc. , 267 F.3d at 673-74.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [5934:6141] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would occur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term "Sports Fuel," which would effectively coopt SportFuel's trademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe the companies were related.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [24558:24810] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
"To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers." CAE, Inc. , 267 F.3d at 673-74.
Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
"To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers." CAE, Inc. , 267 F.3d at 673-74.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [5934:6141] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Protectability is doctrinal; ownership/enforceable licensing rights, priority, distinctiveness and territorial scope must be established. SportFuel states the trademark species test, not a universal requirement for every subsection (a) theory.
interpretation
In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.
Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [7033:7251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.This defense does not require defendant to prove absence of all confusion. Nominative use and expressive-use analysis are separate and jurisdiction-sensitive. Jack Daniel’s (2023) rejects the special Rogers threshold when the challenged designation is used as a mark for defendant’s own goods; parody may still affect confusion.