What did the courts rule in Central Manufacturing V Brett?

Finally, despite finding that the plaintiff failed its burden of proving the first prong of the trademark analysis, ownership of a valid mark, the court continued to apply the seven-factor likelihood of confusion test.157 Stoller argued that the ‘378 registration, although did not include baseball bats, was sufficiently strong and related to baseball bats to cause likelihood of confusion.158 The district court, however, found that the application of the likelihood of confusion test weighed overwhelmingly in the defendants favor.159 After assessing the parties’ respective arguments, the district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.160 In granting the defendant’s motion, the court also took two steps seemingly outside of the norm of trademark litigation: the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered the cancellation of the plaintiff’s 249’ registration.161 First, by invoking the court’s power to order the cancellation of a mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1119, the court went beyond what was absolutely required in order for justice to be served in this case. The defendant’s argued that because they were the senior users of the STEALTH mark, the plaintiff’s continued registration of the STEALTH mark for the same goods, baseball bats, violated 15 U.S.C. 1052(d).162 This section states that a mark may be cancelled if it “[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles ... a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”163 Because the defendant’s were the first to use the STEALTH mark and the ‘249 Registration claimed baseball bats, the same goods the defendant’s sold using the mark, sufficiently likelihood of confusion justified cancellation of the ‘249 registration.164 Accordingly, the district court ordered the cancellation of the ‘249 registration.165 Second, the award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act is reserved only for those “exceptional” cases; thus, it is unlikely that a court will award attorneys fees in trademark litigation. A discussion of the award of attorneys’ fees and costs is discussed in Section VI infra.