## Facts

- McGregor-Doniger, Inc., a New York apparel manufacturer, used and registered the trademark DRIZZLER for golf jackets (registration in 1965) and, by that time, had stopped using DRIZZLER on other goods.
- Drizzle Inc., a New York company formed in 1969, sold only women’s coats under the unregistered mark DRIZZLE and used no other mark.
- McGregor’s DRIZZLER golf jackets sold for about $25–$50; Drizzle’s women’s coats sold for about $100–$900.
- McGregor learned of Drizzle’s use in 1974, warned Drizzle in January 1975, and sued in March 1975 after Drizzle continued using DRIZZLE.
- McGregor sought injunctive relief and monetary remedies under federal trademark statutes and a related state unfair-competition theory.
- After a bench trial, the district court dismissed all claims; McGregor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Drizzle’s use of DRIZZLE on women’s coats infringed McGregor’s registered DRIZZLER mark for golf jackets under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
2. Whether Drizzle’s use of DRIZZLE constituted false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
3. Whether, under the Polaroid likelihood-of-confusion factors, consumers were likely to confuse the source of the parties’ non-competing but related apparel goods.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment dismissing McGregor’s complaint.
- The court held McGregor failed to prove a likelihood of consumer confusion between DRIZZLER (golf jackets) and DRIZZLE (women’s coats).
- The court concluded DRIZZLER’s protectable scope did not extend to barring DRIZZLE in Drizzle’s distinct market segment, given the overall marketplace context.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion in the Second Circuit is evaluated under the Polaroid factors, including mark strength, similarity, product proximity, bridging the gap, actual confusion, good faith, product quality, and purchaser sophistication.
- Mark “strength” depends on both inherent distinctiveness and marketplace recognition; strength affects how far protection extends to related but non-competing goods.
- Similarity of marks is assessed in marketplace context; similarity alone does not establish likely confusion where other factors point the other way.
- Limited evidence of actual confusion over a period of concurrent use can weigh against finding likely confusion, though actual confusion is not required.
- Significant differences in price point, channels, and buyer care (including higher purchaser sophistication for expensive goods) can reduce the probability of confusion.

## Conclusion

Applying the Polaroid framework, the court found that DRIZZLER’s relatively narrow marketplace strength, combined with differences in product type, price, and purchasing conditions, and the lack of meaningful evidence of actual confusion or bad faith, defeated McGregor’s claims; dismissal was affirmed.


McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle Inc., 599 F.2d 1126 (2d Cir. 1979)