## Facts

- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. owned federal trademark registrations for Budweiser beer labels and related trade dress, and it licensed Budweiser imagery for use on authorized apparel.
- Michael Berard designed a Myrtle Beach souvenir T-shirt depicting a beer can with a red, white, and blue label; the label’s wording referenced Myrtle Beach and did not identify beer or Budweiser.
- Berard formed Venture Marketing, Inc. to manufacture and wholesale the shirts.
- L & L Wings, Inc., a retailer operating multiple beach stores (including in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina), purchased and sold more than 20,000 of the shirts.
- Anheuser-Busch alleged the shirt’s overall appearance was confusingly similar to Budweiser’s label/trade dress and would lead consumers to believe the shirt was sponsored, approved, or licensed by Anheuser-Busch.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) by holding, as a matter of law, that the T-shirt created a likelihood of confusion with Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser marks despite the jury’s finding of no likely confusion.
2. Whether the evidentiary record compelled a finding of likely confusion such that no reasonable jury could have returned a defense verdict.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s JNOV and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict for the defendants.
- The court held that likelihood of confusion was a fact question for the jury on this record and that the district court improperly substituted its view for the jury’s.
- The court concluded that meaningful differences in wording, theme, and overall commercial impression permitted a reasonable jury to find consumer confusion unlikely.

## Legal Principles

- JNOV may be granted only when, viewing the evidence in the non-movant’s favor and drawing reasonable inferences for that party, no reasonable jury could reach the verdict returned; a court may not reweigh evidence or assess credibility.
- Likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act is generally a factual determination, commonly appropriate for jury resolution when the evidence permits competing inferences.
- Similarity analysis focuses on the marks’ overall commercial impression in context; overlap in some design elements (such as color scheme or general motif) does not require a finding of confusion as a matter of law when other features and circumstances differentiate the source-identifying message.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit required reinstatement of the defendants’ jury verdict because the record allowed a reasonable finding that the Myrtle Beach beer-can souvenir design, despite sharing some visual elements with Budweiser trade dress, differed enough in text, theme, and overall impression that consumer confusion was not legally compelled.


Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L & L Wings, Inc., 962 F.2d 316 (4th Cir. 1992)