## Facts

- International Order of Job’s Daughters is a young women’s fraternal organization that used its name and emblem to identify members and the organization.
- The emblem depicted three girls within a double triangle with associated symbols and the phrase “Iyob Filiae.”
- The organization licensed at least one jeweler to make jewelry bearing the name or emblem and also sold some insignia jewelry to members.
- Insignia jewelry was also widely sold through thousands of retailers, many unaffiliated with the organization, and was produced by both licensed and unlicensed sources.
- Lindeburg & Co. manufactured and sold fraternal jewelry and, beginning in 1954, sold items bearing the Job’s Daughters insignia.
- The organization declined Lindeburg’s request to be designated an “official jeweler,” later demanded that it stop producing unlicensed insignia jewelry, and temporarily granted then withdrew permission for one year.
- The organization sued in 1975, alleging common-law trademark infringement based on Lindeburg’s sale of jewelry bearing the insignia.

## Issues

1. Whether purchasers were likely to be confused into believing that jewelry bearing the organization’s emblem was produced, sponsored, or endorsed by the organization.
2. Whether the emblem, as used on jewelry, functioned as a source-identifying trademark or primarily as a symbol of membership or affiliation.
3. Whether the requested protection would improperly confer an exclusive merchandising right untethered to consumer confusion.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for the organization and remanded.
- The court held that the organization failed to prove a likelihood of confusion as to production, sponsorship, or endorsement arising from Lindeburg’s sale of jewelry bearing the emblem.
- The court treated the emblem’s use on jewelry as primarily communicating membership or affiliation, not the manufacturing source.
- The court declined to use trademark law to grant the organization a broad monopoly over the sale of merchandise bearing its insignia absent evidence of confusing use.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark infringement requires proof that the challenged use is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship, or approval.
- A collective mark indicates membership in an organization; when a symbol on goods primarily conveys affiliation rather than origin, its presence alone may not indicate sponsorship or authorization.
- The mere display of an organization’s emblem on merchandise, without additional misleading conduct, does not establish infringement if consumers are not likely to assume organizational production or endorsement.
- Trademark law is not a general “merchandising right” that allows an organization to control all sales of goods bearing its symbols without a showing of likely confusion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside an injunction against an unlicensed jeweler because the organization did not show that consumers likely believed the jewelry was made, sponsored, or endorsed by the organization; the emblem on jewelry mainly served as an affiliation symbol rather than a source identifier.


Int’l Ord. of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 633 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1980)