The Kyjen Company, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, No. 23 C 15119 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2025) (Kendall, C.J.).
Chief Judge Kendall denied defendant ThinkPet’s motion for summary judgment in this trademark infringement case involving the “Fun Feeder” mark for slow feeder pet bowls. Kyjen alleged ThinkPet infringed its registered trademark by including “Fun Feeder” in Amazon product listings.
ThinkPet asserted a fair use defense, arguing it used the term descriptively. However, the Court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether ThinkPet acted in good faith. The Court explained that if evidence establishes the defendant “intends to trade on the good will of the trademark owner by creating confusion as to the source,” the use is not in good faith.
The Court found this case paralleled Promatek, where the Seventh Circuit held that using a competitor’s trademark in metatags to increase search visibility could constitute initial interest confusion. Similarly, Kyjen alleged ThinkPet used “Fun Feeder” for search engine optimization (SEO) to benefit from Kyjen’s goodwill.
Evidence supporting bad faith included: (1) “Fun Feeder” appeared prominently in search results across multiple platforms; (2) the companies were direct competitors selling similar products; and (3) ThinkPet added the term to its listings around June 2023. A jury could reasonably infer ThinkPet intended to cause customer confusion.
On likelihood of confusion, the Court analyzed the seven-factor test and found six factors could support consumer confusion. The Court emphasized that likelihood of confusion is “ultimately a question of fact” that should go to a jury when evidence is not one-sided.