Trojan War

In Trojan Battery Co. LLC v. Golf Carts of Cypress, LLC, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of a likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff’s TROJAN® marks for golf-cart batteries and the defendant’s TROJAN-EV mark for golf carts. The court applied the eight “digits of confusion” as follows:

1. Strength of the mark. The court held that the TROJAN® marks are strong due to “decades of use, marketing to a broad range of golf industry consumers, hundreds of millions in sales, a large market share, and the well-known reputation of the TROJAN® brand in the golf cart market.” The court rejected the argument that third-party uses—such as Trojan condoms and the USC mascot—weakened the mark, finding no evidence that those uses diminished the public’s association of TROJAN® with Trojan Battery within the golf-product marke
2. Similarity of the marks. The court found the marks highly similar because they share the dominant word “TROJAN,” and even though the logos differ, the marks are used in a way in which “a reasonable person could believe the two products have a common origin or association.”
3. Similarity of the products. The court held that golf-cart batteries and golf carts are “highly related” complementary products often used and sold together, and that consumers could believe the senior user would naturally expand into the golf-cart market.
4. Identity of retail outlets and purchasers. Conceded by the defendants, as both parties sell primarily through the same golf-cart retail stores to the same customers.
5. Identity of advertising media. Also conceded by the defendants, as both parties use the same advertising channels.
6. Intent. he court affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant’s principal intended to trade on the plaintiff’s goodwill, crediting evidence that he sold golf carts equipped with TROJAN® batteries and negotiated purchases of TROJAN® batteries before founding Trojan EV, and finding his testimony that he was unaware of the TROJAN® brand “not being truthful”–a finding due considerable deference under the standard of review.
7. Actual confusion. The court found clear error—holding that five instances of confusion over roughly two and a half years of concurrent sales running into the millions of dollars were “insufficient to sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion,” applying the Amstar
8. Degree of care. The court found no clear error, noting that even sophisticated purchasers such as an experienced golf-cart dealer initially believed Trojan EV was affiliated with Trojan Battery, and that “a high price tag alone does not negate other indicia of likelihood of confusion, especially if the goods or marks are similar.”

No. 25-20243 (5th Cir. May 8, 2026).