The applicant is the registered owner of the trademark “Officer's Choice”. The mark has been used by the plaintiff since 1988 and the plaintiff obtained its registration in 2007. In 2013, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had started selling whiskey under the "Collector's Choice" brand. To prevent the defendant from infringing its trademark, the plaintiff filed an action for a permanent injunction. The court upheld the plaintiff's arguments and extended the ex parte preliminary injunction until the final decision. The court relied on consumer psychology and associative thinking to arrive at the conclusion that a “Collector” could be confused with an “Officer”. The defendant used the Collector's Choice mark for whiskey and had applied for registration. in 2011. The defendant was aware of the plaintiff's mark since he cited the plaintiff's mark in a response to an objection. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayFurthermore, by using the mark “Collector's Choice”, the defendant is not claiming that its product is more of a “collector's item” , the defendant admitted that a collector is an officer. The plaintiff therefore argued that the defendant had dishonestly used a mark similar to his own. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had rejected the word “Choice”, i.e. the plaintiff 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 considered that the choices of officers and collectors could create a risk of confusion among consumers. In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on its decision in the “Old Monk” versus “Told Mom” trademark case, in which the two marks were found to be deceptively similar. The court concluded prima facie that a consumer is likely to associate a "Collector" with an "Officer" and the possibility of the plaintiff's mark "Officer's Choice" being remembered/recalled as "Collector's Choice" cannot be excluded. Since a Collector is the highest authority in a district, this may 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 preliminary injunction obtained by the plaintiff in 2013 until the case was finally decided. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff as he had been in business for a long time, achieved significant sales figures and had built a reputation in the market. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a Custom EssayHowever, the defendant was a new entrant in the market, who had barely used its brand and had not yet built goodwill. Therefore, the loss suffered by the plaintiff in allowing the defendant to use the mark during the pendency of the action would be irreparable and the injunction was therefore extended..