IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Conn.: Copyright infringement established; trademark claims proceed to trial in marine docking products dispute, (Apr 3, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The court found unlawful copying of the asserted pricing guide, but held that the likelihood of confusion and key advertising issues required jury resolution.

A federal district court in Connecticut has granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment in an IP dispute between competing marine docking product manufacturers, holding that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyrighted pricing guide while leaving trademark infringement and key false advertising claims for trial due to disputed issues of fact. The court also dismissed one false advertising claim, concluding that the challenged statement was not literally false and that the plaintiffs had failed to produce extrinsic evidence of consumer deception (PSI Marine, Inc. v. Seahorse Docking LLC, No. 3:24-cv-00163-SFR (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2026)).

Background. PSI Marine, Inc., a Michigan-based company engaged in the manufacture and sale of mooring systems for docks and watercraft, along with its president, Mark R. Baluha, brought the action against Seahorse Docking LLC, a Connecticut-based competitor operating in the same marine docking products market.

The plaintiffs asserted rights in the registered and incontestable trademark TIDESLIDE (Reg. No. 2,780,666), which covered mooring products used to secure boats and docks. In addition, Baluha owned a registered copyright in the TideSlide Price Guide 2022 (Registration No. TX 9-112-659), a document used to market and price PSI Marine’s products. The defendant marketed competing products under the names SEA SLIDE, TIDE RIGHT, and FLEX SLIDE, and introduced its own pricing guide for its products. The plaintiffs alleged that these product names infringed the TIDESLIDE mark and that the pricing guide unlawfully copied their copyrighted material.

The dispute arose after Seahorse entered the marine product manufacturing business following its principal’s exposure to PSI Marine’s TideSlide system. Evidence showed that the defendant’s founder had removed TideSlide units from his dock, commissioned a mechanical engineer to create a dimensional model, and subsequently developed competing products. PSI Marine initially filed suit in Michigan, but that action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The present action was filed in the District of Connecticut, where the parties engaged in extensive motion practice, culminating in cross-motions for partial summary judgment.

Trademark infringement. The court began its analysis by setting out the governing legal framework under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act. To prevail, a plaintiff must establish that its mark is protectable and that the defendant’s use is likely to cause consumer confusion. Because Seahorse conceded that the TIDESLIDE mark was incontestable, the dispute focused on the likelihood of confusion. The court applied the eight-factor test established in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).

On the strength of the mark, the court found that TIDESLIDE was entitled to a presumption of distinctiveness due to its incontestable status. Although Seahorse argued that the mark was weak due to relatively modest sales volumes, the court held that this did not overcome the presumption of strength.

With respect to similarity, the court observed that all three accused marks shared structural and linguistic elements with TIDESLIDE, including the use of the terms “slide” or “tide” and a similar two-word format. However, it concluded that the degree of similarity could not be resolved as a matter of law. Citing Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 1189 (E.D.N.Y. 1983), the court noted that even marks distinguishable on close inspection may still cause confusion in the marketplace.

The proximity factor strongly favored PSI Marine. The court found that all the parties’ products belonged to the same general class of mooring systems and were marketed to the same category of consumers: boat owners seeking docking solutions. This direct competition increased the likelihood of confusion.

The evidence of actual confusion was mixed. Survey evidence showed varying levels of confusion across the three product names, with the highest level associated with SEA SLIDE and minimal confusion for FLEX SLIDE. The plaintiffs also presented anecdotal evidence of customers referring to Seahorse products as “tide slides.” The court concluded that this evidence created genuine disputes of fact, particularly for SEA SLIDE and TIDE RIGHT, precluding summary judgment.

On intent, the court found circumstantial evidence suggesting that Seahorse was aware of PSI Marine’s product and had drawn inspiration from it. However, the court emphasized that imitation alone does not establish bad faith and that the critical inquiry is intent to confuse. Because competing inferences could be drawn from the record, this factor also could not be resolved at summary judgment.

After weighing all the Polaroid factors, the court concluded that the evidence did not decisively favor either party. As a result, it denied summary judgment on all trademark infringement claims, holding that a jury must determine whether Seahorse’s marks are likely to cause confusion.

False advertising. The plaintiffs also alleged that Seahorse engaged in false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The court analyzed these claims under the framework articulated in Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010), which distinguishes between literally false statements and merely misleading ones.

One claim challenged Seahorse’s description of its product as including a “patented self-adjusting fender and cleat.” The court rejected this claim, holding that the statement was not literally false. It reasoned that the phrase could reasonably be interpreted to refer to the product as a whole rather than to assert that the cleat itself was patented. Because PSI Marine failed to present extrinsic evidence showing that consumers were misled, the court granted summary judgment to Seahorse on this count.

However, the court reached a different conclusion regarding the claim that Seahorse’s product was “the only adjustable self-leveling docking system.” It found that PSI Marine had presented sufficient evidence, including its own patented product, to create a factual dispute as to the truth of that statement. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Copyright infringement. Applying the standard outlined in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), the court held that PSI Marine owned a valid copyright in its pricing guide and that Seahorse had copied protectable elements of that work.

The court found that Seahorse had access to the pricing guide through both physical and digital means and that the similarities between the two guides were too substantial to be explained by independent creation. It noted that the defendant had replicated key elements, including boat classifications, weight ranges, shaft specifications, and the overall structure of the pricing chart.

Although factual information itself is not protectable, the court held that PSI Marine’s selection and arrangement of that information met the minimal threshold of originality required for copyright protection. It emphasized that the plaintiffs had exercised discretion in organizing the data into specific categories and presenting it in a particular format.

The court also rejected Seahorse’s fair use defense. Citing Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), it held that the defendant’s use was commercial, non-transformative, and directly competitive with the plaintiffs’ use. The copying served the same purpose, marketing competing products, and therefore weighed heavily against fair use.

Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of PSI Marine on the copyright claim.

Equitable defenses and state law claims. Seahorse asserted equitable defenses, including laches, estoppel, and acquiescence. The court declined to grant summary judgment on these defenses, noting that unresolved factual questions, particularly regarding potential intentional infringement, precluded their resolution.

The court also declined to grant summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, finding it coextensive with the unresolved Lanham Act claims.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-00163-SFR.

Judge: Russell, S.

Attorneys: Glenn M. Cunningham (Shipman & Goodwin LLP) for PSI Marine, Inc. James Bradley Luchsinger (Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.) for Seahorse Docking LLC.

Companies: PSI Marine, Inc.; Seahorse Docking LLC

Cases: Copyright ConnecticutNews