## Facts

- Ameritech, Inc. (plaintiff) was a small Ohio company that reclaimed and blended industrial oils, provided laboratory services, and sold or rented lubricant containers.
- In 1979, plaintiff registered the Ohio trade name “Ameritech” and used an unregistered “Ameritech” logo/mark continuously, operating from a single Ohio facility and making most sales in Ohio.
- American Information Technologies Corp. (defendant), a large Midwest telecommunications holding company, adopted and widely advertised the name “Ameritech” in 1983 as part of a rebranding and expansion effort.
- Plaintiff learned of defendant’s “Ameritech” name through newspaper coverage and filed suit about six months later in federal court, asserting Ohio common-law trademark and unfair-competition claims.
- Plaintiff presented evidence of actual confusion and negative reactions attributed to confusion between the two entities.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff’s Ohio-law trademark and unfair-competition claims were barred by laches based on the time between learning of defendant’s name change and filing suit.
2. Whether Ohio law recognizes claims for trademark dilution and reverse confusion of sponsorship such that summary judgment was improper where the district court did not address those theories.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held laches was inapplicable on this record because filing suit roughly six months after notice was not an unreasonable delay as a matter of law.
- The court held trademark dilution is cognizable under Ohio law.
- The court stated it believed Ohio courts would recognize reverse confusion of sponsorship and required the district court to consider that theory.
- The case was returned for further proceedings on dilution and reverse-confusion claims and related confusion analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Laches in trademark cases requires an unreasonable delay after the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged infringement and resulting prejudice to the defendant.
- A short delay of approximately six months after notice of the challenged use is insufficient, on this record, to establish laches as a matter of law.
- Ohio law provides a cause of action for trademark dilution, addressing harm to a mark’s distinctiveness even without direct competition or proof of traditional confusion.
- Reverse confusion of sponsorship may occur when a larger, junior user’s widespread use causes consumers to believe the smaller, senior user is affiliated with or sponsored by the junior user; Ohio law should permit such a claim.
- Summary judgment is improper where potentially viable state-law trademark theories supported by evidence are not addressed by the trial court.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that laches did not bar the senior user’s Ohio-law trademark claims given the prompt filing after notice and directed the district court on remand to consider dilution and reverse confusion of sponsorship as cognizable theories under Ohio law.


Ameritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Techs. Corp., 811 F.2d 960 (6th Cir. 1987)