Yeah — but which zone?

Okay.  Say you want to get a lube job for your automobile.  You don’t know where to go for service because, frankly, you don’t take all that good of care of the vehicle.  Plus you’re a cheapskate.  But the vibration and rattle you’ve begun to experience worries you.  And you’d prefer not to veer suddenly into oncoming traffic if these symptoms in fact signify a Serious Problem.

So, as you drive down the boulevard in suburban Chicago, you spot a sign that says "Oil Zone".  Whether you’ve done business with automotive parts-dispenser AutoZone or not, might you think that an association between Oil Zone and AutoZone exists?  Might the "Oil Zone" sign confuse you such that you associate with Oil Zone the goodwill that the fine people at AutoZone have built up through local and national advertising?

The Seventh Circuit answered yes for you today.  It held that the evidence raised a fact question as to the "likelihood of confusion" element of a trademark infringement claim.  (Mr. Strick probably didn’t help himself by also using "Wash Zone" and denying that he’d ever heard of AutoZone.)  It thus reversed a summary judgment against AutoZone in its lawsuit for transgression of its "AutoZone" trademark. AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, No. 07-2136 (7th Cir. Sept. 11, 2008).

Our feed thinks you really should get someone to check out that rattle.