BEBE Stores v. May Dept. Stores ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3619
    ___________
    Bebe Stores, Inc.,                   *
    *
    Appellee,                *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    May Department Stores International, * Eastern District of Missouri.
    doing business as The May Department *
    Stores Company, Inc.,                *      [PUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 10, 2002
    Filed: December 18, 2002
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    May Company has submitted an expedited appeal of a preliminary injunction
    that, with limited exceptions, bars May from advertising and selling women's clothing
    under its new label entitled "be." May, which operates eleven department stores
    nationwide, introduced the "be" clothing line in June 2002 to target women aged 18
    to 30. Bebe Stores, an upscale clothier with a customer base of women aged 19 to 30,
    sued May for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution, and
    also sought a preliminary injunction. The District Court1 granted the injunction and
    required Bebe to post a bond of $3 million. We affirm the injunction and remand for
    reconsideration of the amount of the bond.
    May's appeal concerns three issues: the validity of Bebe's mark, the likelihood
    of confusion between Bebe's mark and the "be" mark, and the amount of the
    injunction bond. Having carefully reviewed the District Court's decision for clearly
    erroneous factual determinations and for errors of law, we have found none. See
    United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 
    140 F.3d 1175
    , 1179 (8th Cir. 1998). With regard
    to the validity of the Bebe mark, the record contains sufficient evidence, including the
    testimony of Bebe's founder and the registration of the Bebe mark with the United
    States Patent and Trademark Office, to support the District Court's finding that "bebe"
    is an arbitrary mark. See First Bank v. First Bank Sys., Inc., 
    84 F.3d 1040
    , 1044 (8th
    Cir. 1998) (explaining that, under 
    15 U.S.C. § 1115
    (b), registration of mark is prima
    facie evidence of validity). As for likelihood of confusion, the similarities between
    the respective names, logos, clothes, and customer bases of "be" and Bebe, together
    with Bebe's evidence of actual confusion, provide ample justification for the District
    Court's decision. Although Bebe did not introduce survey evidence, the live
    testimony of Bebe's employees and of a confused Bebe shopper were compelling
    enough to demonstrate the likelihood of actual confusion. We discern no clear error
    in any of the District Court's findings of fact. Having concluded that the District
    Court's analysis under the framework of Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems,
    Inc., 
    640 F.2d 109
    , 114 (8th Cir. 1981), did not result in an abuse of discretion, we
    affirm the injunction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The case is remanded to the District Court
    for further proceedings.
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    -2-
    On remand, we direct the District Court to reconsider its setting the injunction
    bond at $3 million. Although its order stated that it believed the cost of the injunction
    to May is much less than the $30 million that May claims, the District Court did not
    make any other findings in this regard nor did it give reasons for selecting the $3
    million amount. We are not instructing the District Court necessarily to increase the
    amount of the bond, but the District Court should do so if upon reconsideration its
    additional findings of fact lead to the conclusion that a larger amount would be
    appropriate.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3619

Filed Date: 12/18/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015