## Facts

- AMF manufactured and sold recreational boats under the federally registered trademark “Slickcraft,” used continuously since 1969.
- AMF distributed and advertised nationally through more than 100 retail outlets, spent substantial sums on promotion, and achieved significant sales.
- Bruce E. Nescher, operating as Sleekcraft Boats, began using the mark “Sleekcraft” in late 1968, asserting it was adopted without knowledge of AMF’s mark.
- After receiving notice of alleged infringement, Nescher added a distinctive logo and the phrase “Boats by Nescher” in much advertising and on plaques, but “Sleekcraft” still appeared alone in some uses.
- Both parties produced recreational power boats and marketed nationally through dealers, advertisements, and boat shows, sometimes appearing at the same shows.
- AMF’s boats were aimed at general family recreation; Sleekcraft’s boats were oriented toward high-performance racing and high-speed recreational use, with some overlapping uses (e.g., waterskiing, cruising).

## Issues

1. What standard governs appellate review of a district court’s likelihood-of-confusion determination.
2. Whether concurrent use of “Slickcraft” and “Sleekcraft” was likely to cause consumer confusion as to source.
3. What scope of injunctive relief, if any, was appropriate given the parties’ interests and defendants’ good faith.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of no infringement.
- The court held that concurrent use of “Slickcraft” and “Sleekcraft” created a likelihood of confusion.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter a limited injunction tailored to reduce confusion while considering defendants’ established business and good-faith adoption.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion between related goods is assessed through a multifactor analysis, including: strength of the mark; proximity of the goods; similarity of the marks; evidence of actual confusion; marketing channels; purchaser care; defendant’s intent; and likelihood of expansion.
- A suggestive mark is protectable even if relatively weak due to common industry usage; weakness affects the confusion analysis but does not bar relief.
- Similarity is evaluated by sight, sound, and meaning; close resemblance across these dimensions strongly supports likely confusion.
- Direct evidence of actual confusion is not required; limited or inconclusive evidence does not defeat a finding of likely confusion when other factors point to confusion.
- Good-faith selection of a mark does not preclude infringement if the overall marketplace context makes confusion likely.
- Injunctive relief in trademark cases may be limited and structured to prevent confusion while avoiding unnecessary harm to a good-faith user.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that “Sleekcraft” was likely to be confused with AMF’s “Slickcraft” for recreational boats under an eight-factor test and ordered the district court to impose a narrowly tailored injunction to prevent consumer confusion.


AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)