## Facts

- International Kennel Club of Chicago, Inc. (IKC), an Illinois corporation and AKC member club, sponsors major Chicago dog shows that attract large multi-state attendance and significant participation.
- IKC promoted its shows and related activities through sustained advertising and public relations spending and developed a reputation among purebred-dog enthusiasts.
- Although IKC did not sell dog-related merchandise itself, vendors at IKC shows sold canine-related items, including stuffed dogs.
- Mighty Star, Inc. and DCN Industries, Inc. marketed stuffed toy dogs using the name “International Kennel Club,” including packaging and materials suggesting “registration” of the toys with an “International Kennel Club.”
- IKC received consumer inquiries (calls and letters) indicating confusion about whether defendants’ products were connected to, sponsored by, or affiliated with IKC.

## Issues

1. Whether “International Kennel Club” was protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a) based on secondary meaning in the relevant market.
2. Whether defendants’ use of the identical name on stuffed toy dogs created a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation with IKC’s dog-show services.
3. Whether IKC satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and whether the injunction’s geographic scope was properly limited.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held IKC showed a “better than negligible” chance of success on the merits as to both secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief barring defendants’ use of “International Kennel Club.”
- The court affirmed the injunction in principle but reversed in part and remanded for modification or clarification of the injunction’s geographic reach to ensure it was not overbroad.

## Legal Principles

- A descriptive trade name is protectable under § 43(a) if it has acquired secondary meaning—i.e., the relevant public associates the name with a single source—shown by long use, promotion, and reputation in the market.
- Likelihood of confusion may be found where identical marks are used in related markets, including when one party provides services and the other sells goods, if consumers could reasonably believe there is an affiliation or sponsorship connection.
- Evidence of actual confusion strongly supports a likelihood-of-confusion finding.
- For a preliminary injunction in this circuit, the plaintiff must show irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, a better than negligible chance of success on the merits, and that the balance of harms favors relief; harm to goodwill and reputation from confusion is typically difficult to quantify.
- Lanham Act injunctions must be tailored, including geographically, to the demonstrated reputation, confusion, and scope of the challenged activity.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit sustained a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from using “International Kennel Club” on toy-dog products because IKC showed secondary meaning and likely consumer confusion, but it required the district court to tailor the injunction’s geographic scope to avoid overbreadth.


Int’l Kennel Club of Chi., Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc., 846 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1988)