How Collector's Choice Deceptively Similar to Officer's Choice

download print

About this sample

About this sample


Words: 465 |

Page: 1|

3 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Words: 465|Page: 1|3 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Officer's Choice'. The mark has been used by the plaintiff since 1988 and the plaintiff obtained registration in 2007. In 2013, the plaintiff found out that the defendant had started selling whiskey under the trademark 'Collector's Choice'. In order to restrain the defendant from infringing on its mark, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The court upheld the plaintiff’s arguments and extended the ex parte interim injunction till final decision. The court relied on consumer psychology and associative thinking in order to come to the conclusion that a 'Collector' could be confused with an 'Officer'.The defendant had been using the mark Collector's Choice with respect to whiskey and had filed an application for registration in 2011. The defendant was aware of the plaintiff's mark as they cited the plaintiff's mark in an answer to an objection.

'Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned'?

Moreover, by using the mark 'Collector's Choice', it is not the case of the defendant that its product is a 'collector's item' instead, the defendant admitted that a Collector is an Officer. Hence the plaintiff argued that the defendant dishonestly used a mark similar to its mark. The defendant contended that the word 'Choice' was disclaimed by the plaintiff i.e. the plaintiff did not have any monopoly over the word 'Choice'. Since 'Collector' and 'Officer' are not phonetically or visually similar and the only common word is 'Choice', the marks are not deceptively similar. The court upheld the arguments of the plaintiff and held that Officer's Choice and Collector's Choice could lead to a likelihood of confusion among consumers. In coming to its conclusion, the court relied on its decision in the 'Old Monk' v. 'Told Mom' trademark case, where it was held that the two marks were deceptively similar.

The court prima facie concluded that a consumer is likely to associate a 'Collector' with an 'Officer' and the possibility of the plaintiff's trademark "Officer's Choice" being remembered/recalled as "Collector's Choice" cannot be ruled out. Since a Collector is the highest authority in a district, this may also lead consumers to believe that Collector's Choice is a superior product of the same manufacturer of Officer's Choice. The court extended the ex parte interim injunction obtained by the plaintiff in 2013 till the suit is finally decided. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff as it had been in the trade for a long time, with large sales figures and had established a reputation in the market.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

However, the defendant was a new entrant to the market, who had hardly used its mark and had not yet built any goodwill. Therefore, the loss to the plaintiff by allowing the defendant to use the mark during the pendency of the suit would be irreparable and hence the injunction was extended.

Image of Prof. Linda Burke
This essay was reviewed by
Prof. Linda Burke

Cite this Essay

How Collector’s Choice Deceptively Similar to Officer’s Choice. (2018, October 08). GradesFixer. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from
“How Collector’s Choice Deceptively Similar to Officer’s Choice.” GradesFixer, 08 Oct. 2018,
How Collector’s Choice Deceptively Similar to Officer’s Choice. [online]. Available at: <> [Accessed 3 Dec. 2023].
How Collector’s Choice Deceptively Similar to Officer’s Choice [Internet]. GradesFixer. 2018 Oct 08 [cited 2023 Dec 3]. Available from:
Keep in mind: This sample was shared by another student.
  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Write my essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled


Where do you want us to send this sample?

    By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.


    Be careful. This essay is not unique

    This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

    Download this Sample

    Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts


    Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.



    Please check your inbox.

    We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!


    Get Your
    Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

    We can help you get a better grade and deliver your task on time!
    • Instructions Followed To The Letter
    • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
    • Unique And Plagiarism Free
    Order your paper now