“Westmont Living decision should give some added comfort to trademark owners who are contemplating a suit against a distant competitor… But such plaintiffs need to be sure that the mark they are asserting is not merely descriptive or another category of marks which requires secondary meaning.”
"Westmont Living案判决虽为跨地域维权的商标权人注入强心剂，但原告必须确保其商标非属需证明次要含义的描述性标识。" ——第四巡回法院
In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a service mark owner with all of its physical assets located along the Pacific coast could maintain a suit for service mark infringement against a company using a similar mark, on the same services, whose physical assets were all located along the Atlantic coast. It based its ruling on the fact that both companies effectively competed nationally, and had solicited and landed customers in each other’s territory. As we navigate this 21st century moment, when online advertising and commerce have become ubiquitous, one cannot help wonder: are the days in which certain marks only provide protection in local or regional areas behind us?
2025 年 3 月，美国第四巡回上诉法院裁定，一家所有实体资产都位于太平洋沿岸的服务商标所有人可以对一家实体资产都位于大西洋沿岸、在相同服务上使用类似商标的公司提起服务商标侵权诉讼。裁决的依据是，两家公司实际上都在全国范围内开展竞争，并在对方的领土上招揽和争取客户。在 21 世纪的今天，网络广告和电子商务已经无处不在，我们不禁要问：某些商标只在地方或区域范围内提供保护的时代已经过去了吗？
I respectfully suggest that the answer is: not quite. And it depends not so much on the number of miles between the parties but on the character of the mark.
我认为答案是：不尽然。这并不取决于双方之间的距离，而是取决于商标的特性。
The Westmont Living Case
韦斯特蒙特生活公司案
In Westmont Living, Inc. v. Retirement Unlimited, Inc., ___F. 4th___, 2025 U. S. App. LEXIS 6280 (4th Cir., Mar. 18, 2025), the Fourth Circuit decided an appeal involving two companies which operate retirement and similar facilities. The plaintiff, Westmont Living, since 2008 had been operating 19 retirement communities and assisted living facilities in California and Oregon under the registered service mark WESTMONT. Westmont Living typically linked its WESTMONT brand to a geographic location, such as “Westmont of Riverside.”
在 Westmont Living, Inc.诉 Retirement Unlimited, Inc. 4th___, 2025 U. S. App. LEXIS6280（第四巡回法院，2025 年 3 月 18 日）中，第四巡回法院判决了一起涉及两家经营退休和类似设施的公司的上诉案。原告 Westmont Living 自 2008 年以来一直在加利福尼亚州和俄勒冈州以注册服务商标 WESTMONT 经营 19 家退休社区和辅助生活设施。韦斯特蒙特生活公司通常将其 WESTMONT 品牌与地理位置联系起来，如 “河滨韦斯特蒙特”。
The defendant, Retirement Unlimited, Inc. (RUI), operated 26 retirement communities and assisted living facilities in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. In 2018, RUI took steps to open a new facility near Richmond, Virginia under a brand which employed the term WESTMONT. Specifically, it named a new facility “Westmont at Short Pump” (Short Pump being the name of a neighborhood in the West End of Richmond).
被告 Retirement Unlimited, Inc. (RUI) 在弗吉尼亚州、北卡罗来纳州和佛罗里达州经营着 26 家退休社区和辅助生活设施。2018 年，RUI 采取措施在弗吉尼亚州里士满附近开设了一家新设施，其品牌使用了 WESTMONT 一词。具体而言，它将新设施命名为 “Westmont at Short Pump”（Short Pump 是里士满西区一个社区的名称）。
Westmont Living sued RUI for service mark infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting two incontestable service mark registrations on the Principal Register. The district court granted RUI’s motion for summary judgment, based solely on the fact that because the parties’ physical facilities were located in “entirely distinct geographic markets,” “consumer confusion [was] impossible.”
Westmont Living 在弗吉尼亚州东区法院起诉 RUI 服务商标侵权，声称在主注册簿上有两个无可争议的服务商标注册。 地区法院批准了 RUI 的简易判决动议，唯一的依据是，由于双方的实体设施位于 “完全不同的地理市场”，“不可能造成消费者混淆”。
Westmont Living appealed. The record before the Fourth Circuit revealed that Westmont Living aggressively advertised its services through a website and numerous social media platforms which funneled all online traffic to its website. Those efforts had borne considerable fruit. Its website was visited by people from every single state, including over 15,000 people from RUI’s eastern territory. Some 68 customers from RUI’s eastern territory had moved into Westmont Living’s facilities on the west coast. RUI also marketed its facilities on the internet, and its website also received visitors from all 50 states, including substantial numbers from California and Oregon.
Westmont Living 提起上诉。第四巡回法院的审理记录显示，Westmont Living 公司通过网站和众多社交媒体平台积极宣传其服务，将所有在线流量导入其网站。这些努力取得了可观的成果。每个州的人都访问了其网站，包括来自 RUI 东部地区的 15,000 多人。来自 RUI 东部地区的约 68 名客户已入住 Westmont Living 位于西海岸的设施。RUI 还在互联网上推销其设施，其网站也接待了来自 50 个州的访问者，包括来自加利福尼亚州和俄勒冈州的大量访问者。
The district court had based its decision on Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F. 2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959). It viewed Dawn Donut as standing for the proposition that where parties operate in separate and distinct markets, there can be no likelihood of confusion and no remedy, unless and until the senior trademark user has imminent plans to expand into the infringer’s territory. That was not the case here.
地区法院的判决依据的是 Dawn Donut Co. 诉 Hart's Food Stores, Inc. 地区法院认为，Dawn Donut 公司的主张是，如果双方在不同的市场上分别经营，就不存在混淆的可能性，也就不存在补救措施，除非并且直到高级商标使用人迫在眉睫地计划向侵权人的领地扩张。本案的情况并非如此。
But the Fourth Circuit vacated the summary judgment against Westmont Living and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to give full consideration to all factors bearing on likelihood of confusion. The appeals court concluded that the lower court had painted with too broad a brush. It viewed Dawn Donut as standing for “a narrow and logical principle that where businesses use the same mark in physically distinct geographical markets and their marketing and advertising are confined to those geographical markets, a likelihood of confusion will not be created.” (Emphasis added). It explained that the circumstances that existed in 1959, when Dawn Donut was decided, “are present far less frequently today, in light of increased mobility, the internet, and the reduced influence of local radio and newspaper advertising.”
但第四巡回法院撤销了对 Westmont Living 公司的即决判决，并发回重审，指示地区法院充分考虑与混淆可能性有关的所有因素。上诉法院的结论是，下级法院过于宽泛。上诉法院认为 Dawn Donut 案代表了 "一个狭义的逻辑原则，即如果企业在实际不同的地理市场上使用相同的商标，且其营销和广告仅限于这些地理市场，则不会产生混淆的可能性。(强调是后加的）。法院解释说，1959 年判决 Dawn Donut 时存在的情况，“在流动性增加、互联网以及当地广播和报纸广告影响力减弱的今天，已经不那么常见了”。
So true. Every day, many of us track down and purchase all sorts of products and services—food, clothing, office supplies, party goods, plumbing supplies, you name it—from wherever search engines take us. Depositors seeking higher interest rates on their savings open accounts online, caring little about where (if at all) the bank has brick-and-mortar offices. Hotels in resort areas and business centers try to attract potential guests from all over. When was the last time you were curious about a business anywhere in the United States and discovered it did not have a website?
说得太对了。每天，我们中的许多人都在搜索引擎上搜索并购买各种产品和服务--食品、服装、办公用品、派对用品、管道用品等等，不一而足。寻求更高的储蓄利率的储户在网上开立账户，而很少关心银行在哪里（如果有的话）设有实体办事处。位于度假区和商业中心的酒店试图吸引来自各地的潜在客人。你上一次对美国任何地方的一家企业感到好奇，却发现它没有网站是什么时候？
Other than the occasional dispute between two businesses using JOE’S PIZZA across the street from each other, are there really any purely local trademark disputes in today’s world? Dawn Donut? I remember thinking it was a quaint anachronism when I first read it in the 1970s.
除了偶尔出现的街对面两家使用 JOE'S PIZZA 的企业之间的纠纷外，当今世界真的有纯粹的地方性商标纠纷吗？黎明甜甜圈？我记得上世纪70年代第一次读到这个词时，觉得它古板得不合时宜。