AMF sold recreational boats named “Slickcraft.” Unaware of this product, Bruce Nescher named his company’s boats “Sleekcraft.” When AMF notified Nescher of the alleged trademark infringement, Nescher added “Boats by Nescher” to its logo to distinguish his product.

Both Slickcraft and Sleekcraft made sport, fiberglass boats of a similar size and price. However, Slickcraft boats were made and marketed for family recreation, such as fishing, while Sleekcraft boats were aimed at high speed racing enthusiasts. These uses did somewhat overlap. Both companies sold their boats nationally, advertised in magazines, and exhibited the product lines at the same boat shows.

AMF sued Sleekcraft Boats for trademark infringement, arguing that its similar name was likely to confuse consumers. But the lower court decided that confusion was unlikely because the boats had different markets. AMF appealed.

Questions:

a. Was the use of Sleekcraft versus Slickcraft likely to confuse consumers?

b. What factors did the court consider in determining whether or not the mark was infringed upon?

c. Of these, which leaned in favor of infringement of the Slickcraft mark?

d. Which factors leaned in favor of no infringement of the Slickcraft mark?