Freeway Ford

The mark is distinctive enough to warrant trademark protection. The plaintiff has used it in commerce in the same area since 1981. It has also advertised widely in the area. In our view, this establishes the first use of the mark in commerce in that trade area. Freeway Ford was successful in this case, because its use of the mark was widespread in the trade area and its potential to entice customers. While this approach may not be a slam dunk, it did help the plaintiff's case.

The defendants have not provided any documentation to back up their claims of trademark infringement. The plaintiff is claiming actual confusion. However, he does produce sufficient evidence to prove this. This is the case with Freeway Ford and Freeway Auto Credit. A disclaimer at the bottom of the Freeway Ford sign is also sufficient to support a finding of actual confusion. As such, the plaintiff's claim has merit. This case has a bright future for both companies.

The Court notes that both Freeway Auto Credit and Freeway Ford use similar methods for identifying and attracting customers. However, the disclaimer on Freeway Auto Credit is difficult to read and unreadable from outside the car lot. Furthermore, a disclaimer pointing to a different name would not prevent confusion. The disclaimer would also not protect Freeway Ford from potential confusion with the former. So, we must take the facts of each case into account in order to determine which one is more legitimate.