12‐364‐cv
StarbucksCorp.v.Wolfe’sBoroughCoffee,Inc.
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2
3
4
AugustTerm,20125
6
(Argued:January9,2013Decided:November15,2013)7
8
DocketNo.12‐364‐cv9
10
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐X11
12
STARBUCKSCORPORATION,aWashingtoncorporation,13
STARBUCKSU.S.BRANDSLLC,14
15
Plaintiffs‐Counter‐Defendants‐Appellants,16
17
v.18
19
WOLFE’SBOROUGHCOFFEE,INC.,aNewHampshire20
corporation,d/b/aBLACKBEARMICROROASTERY,21
22
Defendant‐Counter‐Claimant‐Appellee.23
24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐X25
26
Before:KATZMANN,ChiefJudge,KEARSEandLOHIER,CircuitJudges.27
28
ThisisanappealbytheplaintiffsfromadecisionoftheUnitedStates29
DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Swain,J.)followinga30
secondremandfromthisCourt.TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatplaintiffshave31
failedtoprovethatdefendant’suseofits“MisterCharbucks”and“Charbucks32
Blend”marksislikelytodiluteplaintiffs’famous“Starbucks”marks,anddenied33
injunctiverelief.WeholdthattheDistrictCourtdidnotclearlyerrinanyofits34
factualdeterminations,includingitsevaluationofthesixnon‐exclusivefactors35
bearingonwhetheramarkislikelytocausedilutionbyblurring,enumeratedin36
theFederalTrademarkDilutionActof1995,asamendedbytheTrademark37
DilutionRevisionActof2006.See15U.S.C.§1125(c)(2)(B)(i)–(vi).Balancing1
thosefactorsdenovo,weagreewiththeDistrictCourtthatplaintiffshavefailed2
todemonstratealikelihoodofdilutionbyblurring.Accordingly,weAFFIRM.3
4
DAVIDE.SIPIORA,MatthewChristian5
Holohan,KilpatrickTownsend&Stockton6
LLP,Denver,CO,forPlaintiffs‐Counter‐7
Defendants‐Appellants.8
9
JOHN‐MARKTURNER,ChristopherCole,10
Sheehan,Phinney,Bass+Green,P.A.,11
Manchester,NH,forDefendant‐Counter‐12
Claimant‐Appellee.13
14
LOHIER,CircuitJudge:15
StarbucksCorporationandStarbucksU.S.BrandsLLC(together,16
“Starbucks”)appealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe17
SouthernDistrictofNewYork(Swain,J.)denyingStarbucks’requestforan18
injunctionpursuanttotheFederalTrademarkDilutionActof1995(“FTDA”),1519
U.S.C.§1125(c),prohibitingWolfe’sBoroughCoffee,Inc.,doingbusinessas20
BlackBearMicroRoastery(“BlackBear”),fromusingBlackBear’s“Mister21
Charbucks,”“Mr.Charbucks,”and“CharbucksBlend”marks(the“Charbucks22
Marks”).Afterabenchtrialfollowedbyadditionalbriefingfromtheparties23
uponremandfromthisCourt,theDistrictCourtconcludedthatStarbucksfailed24
toprovethattheCharbucksMarksarelikelytodiluteStarbucks’famous25
“Starbucks”marks(the“StarbucksMarks”)anddeniedStarbucks’requestforan26
injunction.27
Onappeal,StarbucksarguesthattheDistrictCourterredinfindingonly28
minimalsimilarityandweakevidenceofactualassociationbetweenthe29
CharbucksMarksandtheStarbucksMarks.Starbucksalsocontendsthatthe30
-2-
