## Facts

- Libman Company manufactured and sold brooms nationally and used a broom-bristle “color-band” design beginning in 1990.
- Libman held a federal registration (issued in 1993) for a mark consisting of a contrasting vertical band of bristles along one edge of a broom head; the registration did not claim particular colors.
- Libman used varying color combinations (e.g., red, green, or black bands against gray-toned bristles).
- Vining Industries acquired the O’Cedar broom and mop line in 1993 and introduced the O’Cedar 2000 broom and later a “Professional Products Extra Wide” broom.
- Libman alleged Vining’s brooms infringed because they used a gray-on-gray contrasting bristle band conceptually similar to Libman’s mark.
- Vining sold its brooms in wrappers with large labels that obscured the bristle colors at the point of sale; the bristle-band feature was difficult to notice, especially because the contrast was between shades of gray.
- After a bench trial, the district court found infringement, permanently enjoined Vining, and awarded Libman nearly $1.2 million representing Vining’s profits.

## Issues

1. Whether Libman proved a likelihood of consumer confusion sufficient to establish infringement of its registered broom bristle color-band mark under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred, after a bench trial, in finding that consumers were likely to mistake Vining’s brooms for Libman’s based on the bristle-band design.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment for Libman and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Vining.
- The court held the district court clearly erred in finding a likelihood of consumer confusion.
- The court emphasized the absence of evidence of actual confusion despite substantial sales, the absence of consumer survey evidence, and the limited visibility of the alleged infringing feature in the real-world retail setting due to packaging and subtle color contrast.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff alleging infringement of a registered mark must prove a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source.
- Trademark law protects identifying function, not a general right to exclude others absent likely confusion.
- Likelihood of confusion must be evaluated in the conditions under which consumers encounter the products, including packaging and point-of-sale presentation.
- On appeal from a bench trial, likelihood-of-confusion findings are reviewed for clear error; a finding may be reversed where the inference of confusion is unsupported by the evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that Libman failed to carry its burden to show a likelihood of consumer confusion from Vining’s gray-on-gray bristle band, particularly given packaging that obscured the feature and the lack of actual-confusion or survey evidence, and it ordered judgment entered for Vining.


Libman Co. v. Vining Indus., Inc., 69 F.3d 1360 (7th Cir. 1995)