## Facts

- Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. controlled commercial use and licensing of Jimi Hendrix’s name and image and owned registered trademarks used on merchandise such as T-shirts, posters, and shot glasses.
- Electric Hendrix, L.L.C. promoted and sold vodka using Jimi Hendrix’s name and image and used similar Hendrix-branded promotional merchandise (including T-shirts, posters, and shot glasses).
- Both parties marketed over the internet and targeted consumers who were fans of Jimi Hendrix.
- Experience Hendrix sued under the Lanham Act and related law, alleging that Electric Hendrix’s use of the Hendrix name and likeness created consumer confusion as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship.
- Experience Hendrix moved for summary judgment on trademark infringement based on likelihood of confusion, including evidence of actual confusion.

## Issues

1. Whether Electric Hendrix’s use of Jimi Hendrix’s name and image on vodka and related promotional merchandise was likely to cause consumer confusion with Experience Hendrix’s trademarks.
2. Whether the evidence (including actual confusion and overlapping internet marketing) made likelihood of confusion so one-sided that summary judgment on infringement was appropriate.

## Decision

- The court granted Experience Hendrix’s motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
- Applying the Ninth Circuit’s multifactor likelihood-of-confusion test, the court found no reasonable jury could conclude there was no likelihood of confusion.
- The court treated the Hendrix marks as strong and found substantial similarity in the parties’ use of “Hendrix” and Hendrix-related imagery.
- The court found the goods sufficiently related because Electric Hendrix used the same types of merchandise as Experience Hendrix, and a Hendrix-branded vodka appeared to consumers as a plausible licensed extension.
- The court credited evidence of actual consumer confusion and found overlapping internet marketing channels increased the risk of confusion.
- Remedies were left for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark infringement turns on likelihood of consumer confusion evaluated under the Sleekcraft factors: strength of the mark; relatedness of goods; similarity of marks; actual confusion; marketing channels; purchaser care; defendant’s intent; and likely expansion.
- Likelihood of confusion is assessed under the totality of the circumstances; no factor is dispositive, but actual confusion evidence is highly probative.
- Overlapping marketing channels (including internet sales and promotion) and targeting the same audience support a confusion finding.
- For low-cost or impulse-purchase goods, courts presume a lower degree of purchaser care, increasing the likelihood of confusion.
- Using a famous name and image to capitalize on established goodwill, without meaningful differentiation, supports an inference of likely confusion and can justify summary judgment when the record is one-sided.

## Conclusion

The court held that Electric Hendrix’s Hendrix-branded vodka promotions and overlapping merchandise created a likelihood of consumer confusion as a matter of law and entered summary judgment on trademark infringement for Experience Hendrix, leaving remedies for later determination.


Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Electric Hendrix, L.L.C., No. C07-0338-TSZ, 2008 WL 3243896 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2008)