Editing Horphag Research v. Pellegrini

== Factual Background ==

== Factual Background ==

Plaintiff owned the [[trademark]] “Pycnogenol” for a pharmaceutical product. The defendant sold pharmaceuticals, including plaintiff’s product, through a [[website]]. The defendant included “Pychogenol” as one of the [[metatag]]s on the [[website|site]].

Plaintiff owned the [[trademark]] “Pycnogenol” for a pharmaceutical product. The defendant sold pharmaceuticals, including plaintiff’s product, through a [[website]]. The defendant included “Pychogenol” as one of the [[metatag]]s on the [[website|site]].

The appellate court held that this use of the [[trademark|mark]] was [[prima facie]] [[trademark infringement|infringing]]. It rejected the defendant’s defense of [[nominative fair use]], on the ground that defendant’s conduct failed to meet the requirement that “the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the [[trademark|mark]], suggest [[sponsorship]] or [[endorsement]] by the [[trademark owner|trademark holder]].” Here, the court found that defendant’s “references to Pycnogenol spawn [[likelihood of confusion|confusion]] as to [[sponsorship]] and attempt to appropriate the cachet of the [[trademark]] Pycnogenol to his product.”

The appellate court held that this use of the [[trademark|mark]] was [[prima facie]] [[trademark infringement|infringing]]. It rejected the defendant’s defense of [[nominative fair use]], on the ground that defendant’s conduct failed to meet the requirement that “the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the [[trademark|mark]], suggest [[sponsorship]] or [[endorsement]] by the [[trademark owner|trademark holder]].” Here, the court found that defendant’s “references to Pycnogenol spawn [[likelihood of confusion|confusion]] as to [[sponsorship]] and attempt to appropriate the cachet of the [[trademark]] Pycnogenol to his product.”