## Facts

- Brunswick Corporation, through its Zebco division, sold the closed-face spin-cast fishing reel known as the Zebco Model 33, introduced in 1954 with a distinctive overall appearance (chrome cone-shaped front cover, stubby back cover, black-and-chrome finish).
- Don McIntire, a former Zebco employee, formed Spinit Reel Company after leaving Zebco and began selling a closed-face reel (SR 210) by February 1983.
- The SR 210 closely resembled the Model 33; the trial court found Spinit had copied the Model 33’s design and that the Model 33’s appearance was unique in the market except for the SR 210.
- Zebco notified Spinit that the SR 210 violated Brunswick’s rights and sought design changes; negotiations failed, though Spinit made some alterations.
- Evidence at trial included proof of actual confusion among consumers and retailers and evidence that Brunswick’s sales declined during the period the SR 210 was on the market.
- Spinit argued other market factors, including new competing reels, may have contributed to Brunswick’s sales decline.

## Issues

1. Whether the SR 210’s trade dress was nonfunctional, distinctive, and likely to cause confusion with the Model 33, establishing liability under Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
2. Whether the district court erred by denying any monetary damages after finding § 43(a) trade dress infringement and evidence of lost sales.
3. Whether Brunswick was entitled to attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act and under the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
4. Whether the district court properly rejected Spinit’s defenses (including laches and functionality) and properly issued a permanent injunction.
5. Whether Spinit owed unpaid royalties under a licensing arrangement and, if so, whether judgment should enter for Brunswick.

## Decision

- Affirmed the finding that Spinit violated Lanham Act § 43(a) by copying the nonfunctional trade dress of the Model 33 and creating a likelihood of confusion, including actual confusion.
- Affirmed that Spinit failed to prove the challenged design features were functional.
- Affirmed the permanent injunction prohibiting marketing of the SR 210 with the infringing trade dress and affirmed rejection of Spinit’s laches defense.
- Reversed the denial of monetary damages and remanded for proceedings to determine an appropriate damages award and to permit post-trial discovery relevant to damages.
- Affirmed denial of attorney’s fees under both the Lanham Act and the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
- Held Spinit liable for unpaid royalties and directed entry of judgment for Brunswick on that issue.

## Legal Principles

- Trade dress under § 43(a) is protectable when it is distinctive, nonfunctional, and likely to cause confusion as to source; evidence of actual confusion and close copying supports liability and injunctive relief.
- When trade dress distinctiveness and copying are shown, the alleged infringer bears the burden to prove the design features are primarily functional rather than source-identifying.
- After Lanham Act liability is established, damages need not be proven with mathematical precision; where some causal link to harm is shown, uncertainty in amount is generally resolved against the infringer rather than used to deny all monetary relief.
- Attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act require an “exceptional case,” generally involving willful, malicious, fraudulent, or bad-faith infringement; absence of such conduct supports denial of fees.
- Equitable relief, including permanent injunctions, is appropriate where likelihood of confusion is strong and infringement is established, and laches requires unreasonable delay and prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability and injunctive relief for trade dress infringement of the Zebco Model 33, but ruled that the district court improperly denied any monetary recovery once infringement and a basis for damage were shown; it remanded for a damages determination, affirmed denial of attorney’s fees for lack of an exceptional case, and ordered judgment for unpaid royalties.


Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co., 832 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1987)