## Facts

- Trek Bicycle Corp. used the “TREK” mark on bicycles since 1977, expanded use to numerous related products, and obtained federal trademark registrations incorporating “TREK.”
- Trek’s products were sold broadly through independent dealers nationwide; Trek also advertised nationally and gained visibility through athlete sponsorships.
- Trek briefly participated in the stationary exercise cycle market and contemplated reentry, and Trek asserted its trademark rights extended to exercise-related goods.
- Thane International, Inc. developed and sold an elliptical stationary exercise machine marketed under the name “OrbiTrek,” primarily through infomercials.
- Thane sought a declaratory judgment that “OrbiTrek” did not infringe or dilute Trek’s mark; Trek counterclaimed for infringement (including unfair competition) and federal dilution.
- Trek offered survey evidence indicating consumers associated “OrbiTrek” with Trek or believed there was sponsorship/affiliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Thane, finding no likelihood of confusion and concluding Trek’s mark was not sufficiently famous for federal dilution.

## Issues

1. Whether, on summary judgment, evidence (including survey evidence) could allow a reasonable jury to find a likelihood of confusion between “TREK” and “OrbiTrek” for exercise equipment under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether “TREK” was “famous” within the meaning of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act such that Trek could pursue a federal dilution claim.

## Decision

- Reversed the grant of summary judgment for Thane on Trek’s infringement and unfair-competition theories and remanded for further proceedings.
- Held Trek presented evidence—particularly survey evidence—that could permit a reasonable jury to find likely confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Affirmed summary judgment for Thane on Trek’s federal dilution claim.
- Concluded Trek’s evidence showed strength within the cycling market but did not establish fame among the general consuming public as required for federal dilution.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion is generally a fact-intensive inquiry; at summary judgment, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.
- Consumer survey evidence can be persuasive proof of likely confusion and may create a triable issue that precludes summary judgment.
- Use of a junior mark that contains the entirety of a senior mark, combined with sufficiently related goods, can support an inference of likely confusion.
- Federal dilution requires a threshold showing that the mark is widely recognized by the general consuming public; “niche” fame in a specialized market is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Trek’s evidence, including surveys, was sufficient to require a jury determination on whether “OrbiTrek” was likely to confuse consumers, but Trek could not proceed on federal dilution because “TREK” was not shown to be famous among the general consuming public.


Thane Int’l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)