Seattle Trademark Lawyer

In a rare trademark opinion, the Washington State Court of Appeals yesterday found that Defendant/Respondent 3M Co.’s SCOTCHGARD trademark did not infringe Plaintiff/Appellant Stongard, Inc.’s STONGARD or STÔNGÄRD trademarks.

After terminating Stongard in 2003 as a preferred distributor of its SCOTCHCAL automotive paint protection film product, 3M rebranded its product as SCOTCHGARD, a well-known mark 3M had used with other products but had not previously used with film. Stongard interpreted the change as a deliberate attempt to infringe its STONGARD and STÔNGÄRD word and design marks and filed suit.

After a six-day bench trial, King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce determined that plaintiff’s STONGARD and STÔNGÄRD word marks were generic or descriptive without secondary meaning. He found the protection Stongard had obtained through federal registration only extended to its a pink-and-blue logo in a stylized font. Therefore, he limited his likelihood of confusion analysis to the parties’ design marks. Comparing the parties’ logos, Judge Cayce found that confusion was not likely. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed that finding. Its unpublished decision, titled 3M Co. v. Stongard, Inc., No. 56911-2-I, 2007 WL 93227 (Wash.App. Div. 1), is available here.