Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark "Officer's Choice." The mark has been used by the appellant since 1988 and the appellant obtained registration in 2007. In 2013, the appellant discovered that the respondent had started selling whiskey under the brand name "Collector's Choice". In order to prevent the defendant from infringing its trademark, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for permanent injunction. The court accepted the applicant's arguments and extended the ex parte temporary injunction until the final decision. The court relied on consumer psychology and associative thinking to reach the conclusion that a "collector" could be confused with an "official". The defendant had used the Collector's Choice mark in respect of whiskey and had applied for registration in 2011. The defendant was aware of the plaintiff's mark as it cited the plaintiff's mark in a response to a objection. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Furthermore, by using the "Collector's Choice" mark, the defendant does not believe that its product is instead a "collector's item", the defendant admitted that a collector is an official. Therefore the plaintiff argued that the defendant dishonestly used a trademark similar to his. The respondent contended that the word "Choice" was denied by the appellant, i.e. the appellant had no monopoly on the word "Choice". Since «Collector» and «Officer» are not phonetically or visually similar and the only common word is «Choice», the marks are not deceptively similar. The court accepted the plaintiff's arguments and found that Officer's Choice and Collector's Choice were likely to pose a likelihood of confusion among consumers. To reach its conclusion, the court relied on its decision in the trademark case “Old Monk” versus “Told Mom,” in which the two marks were found to be deceptively similar. The court prima facie concluded that a consumer is likely to associate a 'Collector' with an 'Officer' and the possibility of the plaintiff's trademark 'Officer's Choice' being remembered/recalled as 'Collector's Choice' cannot be ruled out. Since a Collector is the highest authority in a district, this can also lead consumers to believe that Collector's Choice is a superior product from the same manufacturer as Officer's Choice. The court extended the ex parte temporary injunction obtained by the applicant in 2013 until the final decision on the case. The ratio of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff as it had been in the business for a long time, had large sales figures and had an established reputation in the market. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay However, the defendant was a new entrant in the market, having just used its brand and had not yet built any goodwill. Therefore, the harm to the plaintiff from allowing the defendant to use the mark during the pendency of the suit would be irreparable and so the injunction was extended.