Sinco Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Sinco Electronics Co. Ltd.

Background

After the final pretrial conference, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about possible jury instructions for the upcoming trial. The order did not decide the parties' liability or enter a final ruling on the trademark-related claims.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court questioned whether the evidence and theory of the case fit trade-name infringement—described in the order as false designation of origin—more closely than trademark infringement. The court noted that SinCo had repeatedly characterized the case as XingKe passing itself off as SinCo. The defendants had conceded SinCo's ownership and the validity of the trademarks at issue, so the court stated that registration, which creates a presumption of ownership and validity, was not particularly material to the dispute.

The court also asked whether the jury should receive a specific instruction on initial-interest confusion. The court described that doctrine as confusion that creates initial interest in a competitor's product even if the confusion is dispelled before a sale. It noted that the jury might hear evidence about initial confusion concerning whether XingKe contacts represented SinCo, as well as evidence that customers later understood they were dealing with XingKe rather than SinCo. The court asked what legal standard should apply if there was initial confusion followed by clarification.

Order

Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint filing stating their positions by October 13, 2021. If they agreed on instructions addressing these issues, they were to include them in the filing. If they did not agree, each party was to submit proposed instructions, including a proposed instruction even if that party believed no instruction on a particular issue was necessary.