## Facts

- Vitarroz Corporation, a regional food distributor serving many Hispanic-focused bodegas, adopted **BRAVO’S** in 1976 for an “all purpose cracker” and launched sales in November 1976.
- A trademark search disclosed many existing **BRAVO** uses/registrations for food and beverage products, but Vitarroz proceeded and did not seek federal registration for BRAVO’S (despite registering other marks).
- Vitarroz’s packaging prominently displayed the **VITARROZ** house mark, with **BRAVO’S** appearing in smaller text; it spent about $13,000 on a short Spanish-language radio campaign ending in early 1977.
- Over roughly three and a half years before trial, Vitarroz’s BRAVO’S sales totaled about $136,000.
- In 1979, Borden, Inc. introduced **BRAVOS** (no apostrophe) for a round corn tortilla chip sold through independent distributors to supermarkets and grocery stores.
- The products sometimes appeared in the same stores but were often shelved in different sections; Vitarroz’s sales skewed toward specialty/ethnic outlets that often did not carry Borden’s chips.
- Vitarroz sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking to enjoin Borden’s use of BRAVOS.

## Issues

1. Whether Vitarroz was entitled to injunctive relief where the marks (BRAVO’S and BRAVOS) were virtually identical and the snack products had some overlapping uses and retail presence.
2. Whether the district court could deny an injunction based on the weakness of the BRAVO’S mark and the balance of equities, including Borden’s good faith and investment and the limited risk of harm to Vitarroz.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Borden and the denial of an injunction.
- Although the marks were “virtually identical” and the goods shared some competing uses, the district court permissibly found the likelihood of confusion and the equities insufficient to warrant injunctive relief.
- The court emphasized the crowded field of third-party BRAVO uses, Vitarroz’s limited market penetration and advertising, the market/channel differences, the lack of persuasive evidence of actual confusion, and Borden’s good-faith adoption and substantial investment.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark infringement turns on the overall likelihood of confusion; near identity of marks and related goods is relevant but not dispositive.
- Extensive third-party use of a term in the same general product field can render a mark weak and narrow the scope of protection.
- Injunctive relief in trademark cases is equitable and discretionary; a court may deny an injunction when the risk of confusion and harm to the plaintiff is slight and the balance of hardships favors the defendant.
- Good-faith adoption and significant reliance/investment by the defendant may weigh against injunctive relief, particularly where the plaintiff’s mark is weak and marketplace overlap is limited.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that, despite the close similarity of BRAVO’S and BRAVOS and some overlap in snack-food uses, the plaintiff’s weak, crowded-field mark, limited exposure, minimal evidence of actual confusion, and the equities favoring a good-faith defendant supported denial of an injunction.


Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. 1981)