## Facts

- Pikle-Rite Company, Inc. sold bottled pickles and related products under the trademark “Polka,” used continuously since 1932 and registered under Illinois law in 1934.
- Pikle-Rite obtained a federal registration for “Polka” in 1956, depicting the word with musical notes.
- “Polka,” as applied to pickle products, was found to be fanciful, arbitrary, non-descriptive, and non-generic.
- Pikle-Rite’s “Polka” products were sold primarily through self-service grocery stores in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio.
- Chicago Pickle Co., Inc. began distributing bottled pickles under the name “Pol-Pak” in December 1956, also through self-service grocery stores to ordinary retail consumers.
- Pikle-Rite sued under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and also alleged unfair competition, seeking a permanent injunction, an accounting of profits, and treble damages.
- Chicago Pickle argued that consumers would not be confused when labels were compared and that “Pol” was an abbreviation for “Polish,” not a reference to Pikle-Rite’s mark.

## Issues

1. Whether Chicago Pickle’s use of “Pol-Pak” on bottled pickles was likely to cause confusion with Pikle-Rite’s registered “Polka” mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a).
2. Whether Pikle-Rite was entitled to (a) a permanent injunction, (b) an accounting and treble damages, and (c) injunctive relief extending beyond Pikle-Rite’s established market area.

## Decision

- The court found “Pol-Pak” confusingly similar to “Polka” for bottled pickles and held Chicago Pickle liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- The court granted a permanent injunction restraining use of “Pol-Pak” (and confusingly similar designations) in states where Pikle-Rite had established a market for “Polka” products.
- The court denied an accounting of profits and denied treble damages.

## Legal Principles

- Infringement does not require identical marks; liability may be found where a mark is so similar in form, spelling, or sound that ordinary purchasers are likely to be confused as to source.
- Likelihood of confusion, not proof of actual confusion, is the controlling standard for infringement and injunctive relief.
- In assessing confusion for goods sold in self-service stores, courts evaluate the overall commercial impression on ordinary purchasers rather than careful, side-by-side comparisons.
- Equitable relief may be tailored to the plaintiff’s proven market presence; monetary remedies may be denied where the evidence and equities do not justify an accounting or enhanced damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that “Pol-Pak” for bottled pickles was likely to be confused with Pikle-Rite’s “Polka” mark and enjoined further use only within Pikle-Rite’s established regional markets, while refusing to award profits or treble damages.


Pikle-Rite Co. v. Chi. Pickle Co., 171 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. Ill. 1959)