Western District of Washington Finds No Likelihood of Confusion Between SPIDER and SPYDERCRANE
SafeWorks, LLC, based in Tukwila, Washington, is the owner of several registered SPIDER marks for hoisting and suspended staging and scaffolding equipment. Spydercrane.com, LLC, based in Arizona, is a crane distribution business that sells truck-mounted cranes. SafeWorks has manufactured, sold and rented equipment under the SPIDER marks since 1947; Spydercrane began selling cranes under the Spydercrane name in 1999.
SafeWorks learned of Spydercrane after Spydercrane applied to register SPYDERCRANE with the PTO in 2008. Thereafter, SafeWorks sued Spydercrane for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and for a related claim under Washington state law. Following an apparently unsuccessful summary judgment motion by SafeWorks, the matter was tried to the Court.
In its Memorandum Opinion finding for Spydercrane on all of SafeWorks' claims, the District Court concluded that the "most important [Sleekcraft] factors" for judging the likelihood of confusion between the parties' marks favored Spydercrane.
In SafeWorks' favor, the Court found that the SPIDER marks were suggestive and were very strong with respect to lifting, hoisting, safety and suspended access equipment. Nevertheless, the Court found that the "strength of the mark" factor favored Spydercrane. The Court found that the parties' goods were sold in separate and distinct markets to divergent classes of customers despite the fact that their goods could be broadly described as "products that are used to lift things." In addition, the Court noted the prevalence of the use of the terms "spider" and "spyder" in "the commercial world," although it is not clear that the Court took into consideration the specific goods or services with which these marks were used.
Also in SafeWorks' favor, the Court concluded, with some hesitation, that the similarity of marks favored a likelihood of confusion finding given "some parallels" between the parties' products and the use of Spider/Spyder in the names.
The Court found that the remaining factors favored Spydercrane or were neutral. The Court found that the parties' products, when considered more particularly than merely items used to lift things, were functionally different and were sold to different classes of purchasers (again when examined more precisely than merely those customers affiliated with the construction industry). Thus, the proximity of the goods factor favored a finding of no likelihood of confusion. For somewhat similar reasons, the Court also found that the parties' marketing channels were not convergent and therefore did not support a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Lastly, the Court found that both the degree of care that customers would take with respect to purchase (or rental) of the parties' products and the lack of evidence supporting the existence of an intent to deceive weighed against a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
Thus, taken together, the weight of the factors supported a finding that there was no likelihood of confusion in the marketplace between SafeWorks' SPIDER marks and Spydercrane's SPYDERCRANE mark and the Court found in favor of Defendant Spydercrane.
The cite is SafeWorks, LLC v. Spydercrane.com, LLC, No. 08-00922 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2009).
