## Facts

- Gucci Shops, Inc. sold luxury goods and owned registered trademarks in the “GUCCI” name and a distinctive red band flanked by green bands used on travel and tote bags.
- Fashioncraft Products, Inc. manufactured a “diaper bag” with a diagonal green–red–green stripe on both side panels and the words “GUCCHI” (above the stripe) and “GOO” (below).
- Gucci alleged the stripe and “GUCCHI” imitation, combined with overall bag appearance, made the product resemble Gucci travel/tote bags and created consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, or authorization.
- Gucci asserted the product also harmed the prestige and distinctiveness of its marks by associating them with a cheaper, mass-market item and by ridiculing the marks.
- Macy and Gimbels sold the Fashioncraft bag; Macy removed it from sale before the hearing, and Gimbels did not oppose injunctive relief.
- Gucci sought a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 to stop manufacture, distribution, and sale of the challenged bag pending final resolution.

## Issues

1. Whether Gucci showed a likelihood of success on trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution theories based on the similarity of “GUCCHI” and the green–red–green stripe to Gucci’s marks and the resulting likelihood of confusion.
2. Whether Gucci established irreparable harm (or, alternatively, sufficiently serious questions plus a balance of hardships favoring Gucci) warranting a preliminary injunction.
3. Whether Fashioncraft’s asserted “joke” or parody intent defeated or reduced liability and the need for interim injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted Gucci’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found Gucci likely to succeed on the merits because the strong Gucci marks, the close visual and phonetic similarity of “GUCCHI” to “GUCCI,” and the similar stripe and presentation created a likelihood of consumer confusion.
- The court concluded Gucci showed irreparable harm, including injury to goodwill, prestige, and distinctiveness not adequately remediable by money damages.
- The court rejected the contention that humorous or parodic intent avoided infringement where the use ridiculed the marks and still risked confusion and dilution.
- The injunction restrained Fashioncraft (and, as applicable, further retail sales by remaining defendants) from manufacturing, distributing, or selling the infringing bag pending final adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction may issue upon showing (i) likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, or (ii) sufficiently serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant.
- Likelihood of confusion is supported by strong, distinctive marks and close similarity in sight and sound, particularly where the accused product’s overall presentation suggests affiliation or authorization.
- Famous or high-prestige marks may be protected at the preliminary stage from dilution or tarnishment arising from unauthorized association with lower-priced, mass-market goods.
- Parody or joking intent does not bar relief when the use appropriates core source-identifying elements of a mark and creates a meaningful risk of confusion or reputational injury.
- Harm to trademark goodwill and reputation is commonly treated as irreparable for purposes of interim injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined continued manufacture and sale of a diaper bag using “GUCCHI” and a Gucci-like green–red–green stripe, holding that the strong similarity to Gucci’s marks created a likelihood of confusion and dilution and that parody did not prevent a finding of irreparable harm warranting interim relief.


Gucci Shops, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)