## Facts

- Union Carbide Corporation and its predecessors adopted “EVER READY” for electrical products in 1898 and changed the mark to “EVEREADY” in 1901.
- Carbide sold an extensive line of batteries, flashlights, and miniature bulbs under EVEREADY, supported by heavy advertising and annual sales exceeding $100 million by the late 1960s.
- Carbide owned multiple U.S. trademark registrations for EVEREADY and filed statutory affidavits to maintain the registrations and claim incontestable status.
- Ever-Ready Incorporated, originally a lighting maintenance service, began importing and selling electrical products by 1969 and used “Ever-Ready” prominently on packaging and marketing for items including miniature bulbs.
- Carbide alleged the parties’ goods overlapped, moved through similar retail channels to ordinary consumers, and that defendants’ “Ever-Ready” wording created likely source confusion with EVEREADY.
- Carbide sought injunctive relief and delivery-up of infringing materials, not damages.
- The district court ruled EVEREADY invalid as descriptive, found no likelihood of confusion, and denied relief for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and Illinois dilution; antitrust-related defenses were severed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federally registered mark claimed to be incontestable could be declared invalid on the ground of descriptiveness.
2. Whether defendants’ use of “Ever-Ready” on electrical products was likely to cause confusion with Carbide’s EVEREADY mark.
3. Whether the same conduct constituted unfair competition and dilution under Illinois law warranting injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling that EVEREADY was invalid, holding that incontestability barred invalidation on mere descriptiveness outside the limited statutory defenses.
- The court reversed the no-confusion finding as clearly erroneous, holding defendants’ use of “Ever-Ready” on overlapping electrical products was likely to cause confusion.
- The court reversed denial of unfair competition and dilution relief to the extent it rested on the erroneous validity and confusion determinations.
- The case was remanded with directions to grant appropriate injunctive relief in Carbide’s favor.

## Legal Principles

- A mark that has achieved incontestable status under the Lanham Act is conclusively valid and protectable subject only to the limited defenses specified by statute; descriptiveness alone is not a permitted basis for invalidation once incontestable.
- Likelihood of confusion is assessed using multiple factors, including strength of the senior mark, similarity of the marks’ dominant features, relatedness of goods, overlap in trade channels and purchasers, and probative marketplace evidence.
- Consumer survey evidence may be admissible and weighty on the confusion question, particularly where it reliably measures whether purchasers associate the junior mark with the senior source or sponsorship.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that EVEREADY’s incontestable status foreclosed invalidation for descriptiveness and that defendants’ “Ever-Ready” use on similar electrical products was likely to confuse consumers, requiring injunctive relief and reconsideration of related Illinois unfair-competition and dilution claims consistent with that finding.


Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)