Fuel Clothing Company manufactures and markets apparel for the action sports industry. Fuel was founded in 1992 and has had the "Fuel" trademark on the Principal Register for clothing goods since 1999. Mr. Gould, the owner of Fuel Clothing Company stated in his deposition testimony that his company has "a thousand different uses" for the "Fuel" mark. The company has also taken steps to protect its trademark through the use of litigation proceedings and settlement agreements with other companies allegedly infringing on the mark. On February 27, 2012, Fuel Clothing Company filed a trademark infringement action against Nike following the release of the FuelBand at Nike stores on February 22, 2012. The action was based on claims of federal trademark infringement, federal trademark dilution, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA). On November 4, 2013, after a series of pretrial motions, the court held a hearing on Nike's motion for summary judgment.
Nike moved for summary judgment on two separate grounds. The first argument that Nike proffered was that all of Fuel's claims failed because Fuel had abandoned its mark through naked licensing. Nike also contended that Fuel's claims based on federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and SCUTPA failed because there is no likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers. What are the elements of abandoning a mark through naked licensing? How did the court explain its ruling in regards to the first ground of summary judgment that Nike moved for? What are the nine likelihood of confusion factors that the court bases its argument on in section B.1? What conclusion does the court come to? [Fuel Clothing Company, Inc. vs. Nike, Inc. (7 F. Supp. 3d 594; 2014 U.S. Dist.).]