Dieter v. B & H Industries of Southwest Florida
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
880 F.2d 322 (1989)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Richard Dieter was the president and sole shareholder of Richard A. Dieter General Contractor, Inc. (collectively, Dieter) (plaintiffs). Dieter manufactured and sold wooden window shutters under the registered trademark “Shutterworld” in the region surrounding Tampa, Florida. Dieter’s shutters were primarily suitable for interior, decorative use. Having been in use for more than five years after registration, Dieter’s mark had acquired incontestable status. B & H Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc. (B&H) (defendant) sold exterior, insulated, roll-down security shutters in the area of Fort Meyers, Florida, approximately 120 miles south of Tampa. B&H’s shutters were designed for exterior use as protection against weather and intruders. B&H obtained Florida registration of a “Shutterworld” trademark that was similar to Dieter’s trademark. Dieter sued B&H for trademark infringement. After a bench trial, the court found that Dieter’s mark was valid and enforceable but that there was no infringement because no likelihood of confusion existed. In so doing, the district court evaluated the strength of Dieter’s mark without reference to its incontestable status and determined that the mark was merely descriptive. Dieter appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
