## Facts

- Louis E. Kemp founded a surimi (imitation crab) business and used the “LOUIS KEMP” name and marks on surimi-based seafood products.
- Kemp sold the surimi business, including its trademarks, to Oscar Mayer Foods Corp.; the “LOUIS KEMP” mark for surimi seafood later passed by assignment to Bumble Bee Seafoods and related entities.
- Bumble Bee and its predecessors invested heavily in marketing, developing strong consumer recognition for “LOUIS KEMP” surimi products.
- Around 1995, Kemp began selling wild-rice products (including wild rice and soups) under the “LOUIS KEMP” name.
- Bumble Bee objected and demanded that Kemp stop using “LOUIS KEMP” on those products; Kemp refused and sought declaratory relief that his use was permissible and noninfringing.
- Bumble Bee counterclaimed for trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act.
- After a bench trial, the district court found no likelihood of confusion and no dilution, and entered judgment against Bumble Bee; Bumble Bee appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Kemp’s use of “LOUIS KEMP” on wild-rice products was likely to cause consumer confusion with Bumble Bee’s “LOUIS KEMP” surimi seafood products, constituting infringement under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether Kemp’s use of “LOUIS KEMP” on wild-rice products diluted Bumble Bee’s mark.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the trademark issues.
- The court held that Kemp’s use of “LOUIS KEMP” on wild-rice products created a likelihood of confusion and therefore infringed Bumble Bee’s mark.
- The court concluded the district court misapplied the SquirtCo likelihood-of-confusion factors and undervalued evidence supporting confusion, including actual confusion.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion is assessed under the Eighth Circuit’s SquirtCo factors, including: strength of the mark, similarity of the marks, proximity of the products, intent, actual confusion, and consumer care.
- A strong mark and the use of an identical mark on related goods sold through overlapping channels supports a finding of likely confusion.
- Evidence that the junior user intended to benefit from the senior user’s goodwill supports an inference of likely confusion.
- Evidence of actual confusion in the marketplace, including confusion among trade buyers, is probative and may be significant even if survey evidence is disputed.
- A defendant’s belief that a contract permits use of the mark does not control the Lanham Act analysis; the focus remains on consumer perception.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that Kemp infringed Bumble Bee’s “LOUIS KEMP” mark by using the identical name on related packaged food products, where the record showed a strong senior mark, overlapping marketing context, intent to benefit from existing goodwill, and evidence of actual confusion.


Kemp v. Bumble Bee Seafoods, Inc., 398 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2005)