IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Minn.: Deer images found different, rice importer’s suit does not survive summary judgment, (Apr 13, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The court found the marks dissimilar, commercially weak, and unsupported by meaningful evidence of consumer confusion.

A federal district court in Minnesota has granted summary judgment in favor of a rice distributor accused of trademark infringement, dismissed all claims brought by the competing brand owner, and denied attorney fees. The court held that no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks, citing the weak commercial strength of the plaintiff’s marks, clear visual dissimilarities between the competing logos, widespread third-party use of similar animal imagery in the rice market, and only de minimis evidence of actual confusion. It also independently rejected the plaintiff’s claim for lost-profit damages due to the absence of proof of loss or causation (Global Commodities, Inc. v. Capital Distributors LLC, No. 0:24-cv-00216-JMB-EMB (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Global Commodities, Inc., is a family-run importer and seller of basmati rice and other food products under the “AAHU BARAH” brand, primarily targeting Middle Asian and African communities in the United States. The defendants, Capital Distributors LLC and Capital Imports, LLC, are rice distributors that previously distributed the plaintiff’s products before launching their own competing rice brand, “Al Afia,” aimed largely at East African communities.

The dispute centered on Global’s two federally registered trademarks depicting stylized fawn images, Registration Nos. 3,239,488 and 3,966,152 (collectively, the “Fawn Marks”), used in connection with rice products. Capital owned its own federally registered mark, Registration No. 5,926,738 (the “Impala Mark”), featuring a detailed impala design with a red partial heart element above the animal. All three marks were registered for use in connection with rice.

Global initiated the action after the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied its petition to cancel Capital’s Impala Mark registration. It alleged trademark infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and related state law claims, asserting that Capital’s use of the impala design created confusion with its Fawn Marks.

Capital moved for summary judgment, arguing that Global could not establish a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element for its claims. It also filed a motion to strike certain evidence submitted by Global.

Likelihood of confusion standard. Applying the Eighth Circuit’s SquirtCo factors, the court reiterated that trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a) requires proof that the defendant’s use of a mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the origin of goods. Citing KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 117 (2004), the court emphasized that likelihood of confusion is the central inquiry.

Strength of the marks. The court held that Global’s Fawn Marks were commercially weak. Although they may have been conceptually strong, Global failed to provide admissible evidence—such as consumer surveys—to demonstrate recognition in the marketplace. The court rejected declarations from store owners as speculative and hearsay, relying on Duluth News-Tribune v. Mesabi Publishing Co., 84 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 1996) to disregard unsupported assertions of consumer perception.

Further, the court found that extensive third-party use of similar deer or animal imagery on rice packaging significantly diluted the marks’ distinctiveness. Citing General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 824 F.2d 622, 626–27 (8th Cir. 1987), it held that such widespread use narrowed the scope of protection available to Global’s marks.

Similarity of the marks. On visual comparison, the court found the marks dissimilar in overall impression. The Fawn Marks featured stylized, horizontally stretched deer figures, whereas the Impala Mark depicted a more realistic, upright animal with an additional heart design. The court also emphasized the presence of prominent “house marks”—“AAHU BARAH” and “Al Afia”—on packaging, which clearly identified the source of the goods. Relying on General Mills and Vitek Systems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 675 F.2d 190 (8th Cir. 1982), the court concluded that these differences were sufficient to dispel consumer confusion.

Competitive proximity. The court acknowledged that the products directly competed in certain ethnic grocery markets, which could marginally favor Global. However, it noted that competition alone does not establish a likelihood of confusion without supporting evidence of consumer misperception.

Intent to pass off. The court found no evidence that Capital intended to pass off its goods as those of Global. It held that mere knowledge of a competitor’s product and intent to compete do not establish bad faith, citing ZW USA, Inc. v. PWD Systems, LLC, 889 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2018). The court rejected Global’s attempts to challenge the credibility of Capital’s explanation for adopting the impala design, finding no material inconsistencies.

Actual confusion and consumer care. The court characterized Global’s evidence of actual confusion as de minimis. Isolated instances of initial confusion by a few store owners were insufficient, particularly where no sales resulted from such confusion. It also rejected claims of customer confusion as speculative or hearsay. Further, the court dismissed Global’s expert survey evidence, noting that it tested confusion relating to packaging design rather than the registered Fawn Marks at issue. Citing Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Myers Supply, Inc., 621 F.3d 771, 776 (8th Cir. 2010), the court held that flawed survey methodology rendered the evidence unreliable.

Additionally, the court found that consumers exercised ordinary care in purchasing rice, rendering this factor neutral.

Overall conclusion on liability. Weighing all factors, the court held that no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion. It emphasized that dissimilarity of marks, lack of meaningful confusion, and third-party usage outweighed any competitive overlap. Accordingly, all trademark and related claims failed as a matter of law.

Damages. The court independently granted summary judgment on Global’s claim for lost profits. It found that Global had produced no evidence of actual damages or a causal link between Capital’s conduct and any alleged loss, as required under Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 93 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 1996).

Attorney fees. Although Capital sought attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the court declined to find the case “exceptional.” Applying Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), it held that while the litigation was contentious, it did not warrant fee-shifting at this stage.

Thus, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Capital on all claims, denied the motion to strike as moot, and declined to award attorney fees.

The Case is No. 0:24-cv-00216-JMB-EMB.

Judge: Bryan, J.

Attorneys: Austen P. Zuege (Westman, Champlin & Koehler, P.A.) for Global Commodities, Inc. Ruth A. Rivard (Stinson LLP) for Capital Distributors LLC and Capital Imports, LLC.

Companies: Global Commodities, Inc.; Capital Distributors LLC; Capital Imports, LLC

Cases: Trademark MinnesotaNews