United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41480
REX WAYNE BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STARBUCKS U.S. BRANDS CORPORATION and STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-169
--------------------
Before GARWOOD, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rex Wayne Bell, owner of a business selling beer under the
“Star Bock Beer” label in Galveston, appeals the decision of the
district court finding trademark infringement of the Starbucks mark
and issuing an injunction prohibiting the broader use of “Star Bock
Beer” outside of Galveston or outside the context of Bell’s weekly
musical events.
Bell contends that because the district court found that his
distinctive logo did not infringe on the Starbucks mark, the
injunctive relief which included restrictions on the use of the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-41480
-2-
logo was inappropriate. The district court did find infringement as
to the “Star Bock Beer” name, however, and once infringement has
been found a district court may proscribe related activities that
might have been legally permissible standing on their own. Kentucky
Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368,
390 (5th Cir. 1977). Bell additionally argues that dilution and
confusion causes of action are mutually exclusive and cannot be
supported by the same evidence. He provides only secondary
authority for this contention, and courts to consider the question
have rejected this theory. See James Burrough, Ltd. v. Sign of
Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 274 n. 16 (7th Cir. 1976). The
district court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Kentucky Fried
Chicken, 549 F.2d at 382. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.