## Facts

- General Motors Corporation (GM) owned registered trademarks for the Chevrolet “bow tie” design and the “GMC” letter design.
- Tong Yang Industry Co., Ltd. manufactured aftermarket replacement front grilles designed to fit GM vehicles.
- Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. distributed Tong Yang grilles in the United States, primarily to collision repair shops and also to some online purchasers.
- The grilles at issue incorporated “placeholders” shaped to receive GM emblems: a recessed bow-tie-shaped space for Chevrolet and a raised pedestal for the GMC emblem.
- The emblems themselves were separate parts purchased from GM and attached to the placeholders using studs or pins.
- GM alleged the placeholder designs could cause confusion, particularly post-sale, if portions of the trademark-shaped placeholder remained visible after a GM emblem was attached and observers attributed any inferior appearance to GM.

## Issues

1. Whether there was a likelihood of confusion at the point of sale for purchasers of the aftermarket grilles (body shops and internet buyers).
2. Whether disputed facts about the visibility of the trademark-shaped placeholders after installation created a triable issue of post-sale (downstream) likelihood of confusion.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on point-of-sale confusion, holding the purchasing context made the source of the grilles clear.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded on downstream confusion, holding genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the allegedly infringing portions of the placeholders were visible after a GM emblem was mounted and could confuse later observers.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act is not limited to point-of-sale confusion and may include post-sale (downstream) confusion among observers in the marketplace.
- Summary judgment is improper where material factual disputes exist about how an accused design appears in actual use and whether that appearance could cause confusion.
- Where purchasers are sophisticated and receive clear source information and disclosures, a court may find no likelihood of point-of-sale confusion as a matter of law, even if post-sale confusion remains possible.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the aftermarket grille sales did not present a triable issue of point-of-sale confusion, but it required further proceedings on GM’s post-sale confusion theory because disputed evidence about the visibility of trademark-shaped placeholders after installation could support a finding of downstream likelihood of confusion.


Gen. Motors Corp. v. Keystone Auto. Indus., Inc., 453 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2006)