## Facts

- Amstar Corporation used and federally registered the mark “Domino” for sugar and certain condiment products, sold primarily through grocery channels to household consumers.
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. operated pizza delivery and carryout restaurants under the service mark “Domino’s Pizza.”
- Amstar sued under the Lanham Act and Georgia unfair-competition and anti-dilution statutes, seeking to enjoin use of “Domino” and “Domino’s Pizza.”
- The district court found a likelihood of confusion, credited Amstar’s consumer survey, dismissed Domino’s counterclaim seeking cancellation of Amstar’s registration for salt, and permanently enjoined Domino’s use of the challenged marks.
- Amstar’s survey showed respondents a Domino’s Pizza box; many respondents (including those in cities without Domino’s restaurants) identified “sugar” as a product they believed the company also made.
- Domino’s appealed, arguing that the marks were used in widely different markets and that the district court gave undue weight to flawed survey evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether Amstar proved a likelihood of confusion between “Domino” for sugar/condiments and “Domino’s Pizza” for pizza-restaurant and delivery services.
2. Whether the district court properly evaluated marketplace factors and survey evidence relevant to confusion under the Lanham Act.
3. Whether Amstar established dilution or unfair competition under Georgia law based on Domino’s use in a distinct market.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for Amstar and vacated the injunction.
- The court held the district court’s likelihood-of-confusion finding was erroneous because the parties’ goods and services, channels of trade, purchasers, and advertising were substantially different.
- The court found Amstar’s survey methodology and respondent selection weakened its probative value and did not reliably show marketplace confusion.
- With no meaningful showing of likely confusion or market harm, the Georgia dilution and unfair-competition theories also failed.
- The appellate disposition left undisturbed the denial of Domino’s counterclaim for cancellation of Amstar’s registration.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark protection is not a “right in gross”; even a strong mark is protected only to the extent necessary to prevent likely confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation for the relevant goods or services.
- Likelihood of confusion is determined from the totality of circumstances, including mark strength, mark similarity in context, product/service relatedness, trade channels, purchaser identity, advertising media, intent, and actual confusion.
- The fame or strength of a mark in one market does not, by itself, justify barring use of a similar term in a noncompeting, commercially remote field.
- Consumer surveys must be assessed for methodological reliability and marketplace fit; unrepresentative samples or settings can materially reduce weight.
- State-law dilution relief generally requires a showing of likely injury to the mark’s selling power; use in widely divergent markets without realistic harm is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that “Domino” for grocery sugar and “Domino’s Pizza” for pizza-restaurant and delivery services were too commercially remote to create a likelihood of confusion, and it rejected dilution and unfair-competition claims where evidence of market harm and reliable confusion proof was insubstantial.


Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980)