PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RAY COMMUNICATIONS,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS,
INCORPORATED; CLEAR CHANNEL No. 11-1050
BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED;
KATZ MEDIA GROUP, INCORPORATED;
KATZ COMMUNICATIONS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
(2:08-cv-00024-BO)
Argued: December 7, 2011
Decided: March 8, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Davis
wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Gregory
joined.
2 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Michael Steven Culver, MILLEN, WHITE,
ZELANO & BRANIGAN, PC, Arlington, Virginia, for
Appellant. Bart Wescott Huffman, COX SMITH MAT-
THEWS INCORPORATED, San Antonio, Texas, for Appel-
lees. ON BRIEF: Marissa Helm, COX SMITH MATTHEWS
INCORPORATED, San Antonio, Texas, for Appellees.
OPINION
DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant Ray Communications, Inc. ("RCI")
filed this action alleging trademark infringement under Sec-
tion 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); federal
unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a); and unfair competition and deceptive trade
practices under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1,
thereby challenging the use of its federally-registered AGRI-
NET trademark by Defendants-Appellees Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.,
Katz Media Group, Inc., and Katz Communications, Inc. (col-
lectively "Clear Channel" or "Appellees"). RCI appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to Clear
Channel on its affirmative defense of laches. Ray Commc’ns,
Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d 544
(E.D.N.C. 2010).
Upon our de novo review of the summary judgment record,1
we conclude that the district court erred in determining that
1
"In reviewing a summary judgment, we apply de novo the same stan-
dard that the district court was required by law to apply for granting the
motion for summary judgment." Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty., 48
F.3d 810, 817 (4th Cir. 1995).
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 3
Clear Channel established its defense as a matter of law and,
separately, in failing to consider whether laches bars RCI’s
claim for prospective injunctive relief. Accordingly, we
vacate the judgment and remand this action for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
RCI is a radio network owned by William ("Bill") and Lisa
Ray, the company’s corporate representatives in this suit. RCI
owns the federal registration for the service mark AGRINET.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially issued the
AGRINET registration to Charlottesville Broadcasting Corpo-
ration ("CBC") in 1972 for "educational services rendered
through the medium of radio; namely, a program of interest
to farmers." J.A. 37. Bill Ray began his career in radio pro-
gramming as a farm broadcaster with CBC in 1966. CBC
licensed the AGRINET mark to Bill Ray in 1976 and granted
him a full assignment of rights to the mark in 1986. RCI
maintains that it has used, and continues to use, the AGRI-
NET mark to identify itself as the source of agricultural news
radio programming.
Clear Channel is also a radio network. In the late 1970s and
early 1980s, Clear Channel’s predecessors began using the
terms Oklahoma Agrinet, Tennessee Agrinet, and Kentucky
Agrinet, without RCI’s permission, to identify their agricul-
tural news programming on the air and in marketing.2 Clear
Channel has also used the names Agrinet of the High Plains
and Alabama Agrinet to identify its agricultural news net-
works in Texas and Alabama, respectively. It is undisputed
that RCI was aware of these uses.
2
Clear Channel acquired Oklahoma Agrinet, operating as part of the
Oklahoma News Network ("ONN"), from Broad Street Communications
Corporation in 1984; Tennessee Agrinet, from Paxson Communications
Corporation in 1997; and Kentucky Agrinet, operating as part of the Ken-
tucky Network, from The American Network Group, Inc., in 1992.
4 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
RCI contends that it permitted certain uses of the AGRI-
NET mark by Clear Channel’s predecessors. For instance,
RCI claims that it gave several oral licenses without consider-
ation to individual employees of Clear Channel’s predecessor
companies sometime before 1986, including Jimmy "Krit"
Stubblefield (Kentucky Agrinet), Dan Gordon (Tennessee
Agrinet), and Ron Hays (Oklahoma Agrinet). RCI asserts that
it terminated the license to Stubblefield in 1992, terminated
the license to Gordon in 1997, and terminated the license to
Hays in 2006. RCI maintains that it has never licensed or oth-
erwise permitted Clear Channel to use Alabama Agrinet or
Agrinet of the High Plains. Of the marks RCI claims to have
permitted Clear Channel’s predecessors to use, Clear Channel
continues to use only Oklahoma Agrinet and Tennessee Agri-
net.3 Clear Channel asserts that neither it nor its predecessors
have ever had any agreement with RCI regarding use of the
AGRINET mark.
On June 20, 2008, RCI filed the instant trademark infringe-
ment action against Clear Channel Communications, Inc.,
Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., and Katz Media Group,
Inc., in the Eastern District of North Carolina. RCI sought
injunctive and monetary relief under the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a), and the UDTPA, N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 75-1.1. RCI subsequently amended its complaint to
join Katz Communications, Inc. Clear Channel asserted sev-
eral affirmative defenses, including laches, acquiescence, and
3
Jack Crowner, a broadcaster employed by Clear Channel, testified at
his deposition that Bill Ray approached him at a National Association of
Farm Broadcasters conference in 1992 and requested that he stop using the
name Kentucky Agrinet. Crowner testified that he did not believe RCI had
a legal right to stop his station from using the mark, but that he changed
the station’s mark from "Kentucky Agrinet" to "Kentucky Agnet" as
"strictly a favor" because Bill Ray was his friend. J.A. 1017-18. Clear
Channel permanently stopped using Kentucky Agrinet at that point, so that
particular use of the Agrinet mark is not at issue in this case. Clear Chan-
nel also stopped using Tennessee Agrinet for approximately one year in
conjunction with settlement negotiations.
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 5
abandonment. After the close of discovery, Clear Channel
moved for summary judgment on its affirmative defenses and,
in the alternative, for partial summary judgment on RCI’s
claim for damages. With respect to its laches defense, Clear
Channel argued that RCI knew of the allegedly infringing use
of the AGRINET mark by Appellees, but unreasonably and
inexcusably waited more than 30 years to enforce its rights,
resulting in undue prejudice to them.
The district court granted Clear Channel’s motion for sum-
mary judgment as to its affirmative defense of laches, entered
judgment in favor of Clear Channel, and dismissed as moot
several outstanding motions. The district court concluded that
Clear Channel had established its affirmative defense of
laches as a matter of law and that no reasonable jury could
find in favor of RCI, but it did not separately address whether
application of laches barred both damages and injunctive
relief. The district court also did not address Clear Channel’s
affirmative defenses of acquiescence or abandonment, nor did
it consider Clear Channel’s motion for partial summary judg-
ment on RCI’s claim for monetary damages. RCI timely filed
this appeal.
II.
Preliminarily, we note that on appeal RCI claims infringe-
ment only as to Clear Channel’s continued use of Oklahoma
Agrinet, Tennessee Agrinet, and Agrinet of the High Plains.
With respect to these particular uses of its federally-registered
AGRINET trademark, RCI first contends that the district
court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of
laches because it improperly resolved genuine disputes of
material fact and failed to draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of RCI, the non-moving party. RCI further maintains
that the district court erred in applying laches to preclude both
injunctive and monetary relief. We consider these issues in
turn.
6 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
A.
At the outset, however, we clarify the two-part standard
applicable to our review of a laches determination made on
summary judgment. As is generally the case, we review the
district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See PBM
Prods., L.L.C. v. Mead Johnson Nutritionals, L.L.C., 639 F.3d
111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate
when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mov-
ing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). On the other hand, we review the district court’s
application of the equitable doctrine of laches for abuse of
discretion. PBM Prods., L.L.C., 639 F.3d at 119. The court
"has abused its discretion if its decision is guided by errone-
ous legal principles or rests upon a clearly erroneous factual
finding." Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149, 161 (4th Cir.
2009).
Accordingly, where a district court has granted summary
judgment on the basis of laches, we review the sufficiency of
the evidence in support of or in opposition to summary judg-
ment de novo, but we review the district court’s application
of laches elements to the undisputed material facts for abuse
of discretion. See Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 565 F.3d 880,
882 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted); Chattanooga
Mfg. v. Nike, Inc., 301 F.3d 789, 792-93 (7th Cir. 2002). In
other words, "as long as the district court applies the correct
legal standard on summary judgment and does not resolve
disputed issues of material fact against the non-movant, its
determination of whether the undisputed facts warrant an
application of laches is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."
Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emp. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Anto-
nio, 40 F.3d 698, 707 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Hot Wax, Inc.
v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[I]n
cases in which there is no dispute as to the material facts, the
district court’s decision that laches bars the action is subject
to review by the abuse of discretion standard.") (internal cita-
tions and quotation marks omitted).
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 7
Where, as here, the movant seeks summary judgment on an
affirmative defense, it must conclusively establish all essential
elements of that defense. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 331 (1986) (defendant may prevail on a motion for
summary judgment on an affirmative defense when it has pro-
duced credible evidence that would entitle it to a directed ver-
dict if not controverted at trial). When the defendant has
produced sufficient evidence in support of its affirmative
defense, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to
"come forward with specific facts showing that there is a gen-
uine issue for trial." Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club,
180 F.3d 598, 614 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal citations and quo-
tation marks omitted). However, "where the movant fails to
fulfill its initial burden of providing admissible evidence of
the material facts entitling it to summary judgment, summary
judgment must be denied, even if no opposing evidentiary
matter is presented, for the non-movant is not required to
rebut an insufficient showing." Giannullo v. City of New York,
322 F.3d 139, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).
B.
Turning to the merits of this appeal, we first consider
whether the district court erred in concluding that Clear Chan-
nel is entitled to summary judgment on its affirmative defense
of laches. "In order to prevail under §§ 32(1) and 43(a) of the
Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competi-
tion, respectively, a complainant must demonstrate that it has
a valid, protectible trademark and that the defendant’s use of
a colorable imitation of the trademark is likely to cause confu-
sion among consumers." Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc.
v. Max Shayne, Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 930 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing
15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). Thus, "there is a distinction between the
rights that flow from ownership," most notably the exclusive
right to use the registered mark in commerce, "and the reme-
dies — including an owner’s right to enjoin another person’s
use of a mark — that ripen only when there is a likelihood of
8 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
confusion." What-A-Burger of Virginia, Inc. v. Whataburger,
Inc. of Corpus Christi, Texas, 357 F.3d 441, 447 n.4 (4th Cir.
2004) (internal citations omitted); see also 15 U.S.C.
§ 1057(b). While the Lanham Act does not contain a limita-
tions provision, it provides that trademark infringement
claims are subject to several enumerated defenses or defects,
including the equitable doctrines of laches, estoppel, and
acquiescence. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(9).
Courts apply laches to address the inequities created by a
trademark owner who, despite having a colorable infringe-
ment claim, has unreasonably delayed in seeking redress to
the detriment of the defendant. Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth
Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 461 (4th Cir. 1996); Brittingham v. Jen-
kins, 914 F.2d 447, 456 (4th Cir. 1990). In determining
whether laches operates as a defense to a trademark infringe-
ment claim, we consider at least the following factors: (1)
whether the owner of the mark knew of the infringing use; (2)
whether the owner’s delay in challenging the infringement of
the mark was inexcusable or unreasonable; and (3) whether
the infringing user has been unduly prejudiced by the owner’s
delay. What-A-Burger, 357 F.3d at 448-49; Sara Lee, 81 F.3d
at 461 n.7 (citing Brittingham, 914 F.2d at 456).4 In this case,
the district court found that Clear Channel met its burden of
proof on the basis of undisputed evidence as to each of these
factors, thereby establishing the affirmative defense of laches
as a matter of law. We are persuaded, however, that the dis-
trict court failed to apply the proper legal standard under the
4
The district court mistakenly stated that the first prong of the laches
test applied by this court in What-A-Burger is "whether the owner knew
of the unlicensed use," rather than whether the owner knew of an infring-
ing use. See Ray Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 546 (emphasis added) (cit-
ing What-A-Burger, 357 F.3d at 448-49). On the contrary, the question
whether an infringing use was licensed is relevant to the second prong,
namely the reasonableness of the trademark owner’s delay in filing suit.
Despite its misstatement of the laches test, however, the district court
addressed each of the appropriate factors and found them satisfied in this
case. Thus, we find the error of no consequence.
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 9
first prong of laches (knowledge of an infringing use) and
that, as to the third prong (prejudice arising from delay), the
evidence is insufficient to establish Clear Channel’s entitle-
ment to the affirmative defense as a matter of law.
1.
The question whether a trademark owner knew or should
have known that it had a viable claim for infringement is
determined by an objective standard. See What-A-Burger, 357
F.3d at 449 (citing Kason Indus., Inc. v. Component Hard-
ware Group, Inc., 120 F.3d 1199, 1206 (11th Cir. 1997)).
With respect to this inquiry, the district court correctly noted
that "it is uncontested that Plaintiff knew of Defendants’ use
of the marks." Ray Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 546. On
summary judgment, both parties relied upon data from two
annual trade publications, the National Association of Farm
Broadcasters directory ("NAFB Directory") and AgriMarket-
ing magazine. The custodians of these publications attested
that each is generally used and relied upon in the industry.
Both the NAFB Directory and AgriMarketing magazine list
information about radio programming networks, including
address, phone number, contact person, and number of sta-
tions by state.
The district court determined that RCI had at least con-
structive knowledge of Clear Channel’s and its predecessors’
use of Oklahoma Agrinet since 1978, Tennessee Agrinet since
1982, and Agrinet of the High Plains from 1999 to 2003, as
these uses were listed in the trade publications. See Ray
Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 548. RCI concedes on the basis
of the trade publication entries that it had knowledge of Clear
Channel’s use of its AGRINET mark at the times identified
by the district court, but the parties vigorously dispute
whether and when each known use gave rise to a colorable
trademark infringement claim.
Resolution of this issue is critical to the laches determina-
tion as the defense "arises only where the plaintiff has unrea-
10 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
sonably delayed its pursuit of a remedy." Sara Lee, 81 F.3d
at 462 (citing Brittingham, 914 F.2d at 456) (emphasis in the
original); see also id. at 462 ("[T]o the extent that a plaintiff’s
prior knowledge may give rise to the defense of estoppel by
laches, such knowledge must be of a pre-existing, infringing
use of a mark.") (emphasis in the original). "Logic dictates
that ‘unreasonable delay’ does not include any period of time
before the owner is able to pursue a claim for infringement —
otherwise, a trademark owner could be punished for not
bringing a claim he had no right to bring." What-A-Burger,
357 F.3d at 449 (citing Sara Lee, 81 F.3d at 462).
To demonstrate trademark infringement under the Lanham
Act, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s use of a "re-
production, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation" of that
mark "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive." 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). In sum, in the laches con-
text, "(1) delay is measured from the time at which the owner
knew of an infringing use sufficient to require legal action;
and (2) legal action is not required until there is a real likeli-
hood of confusion." What-A-Burger, 357 F.3d at 451.5
As the movant for summary judgment on laches, Clear
Channel was charged with presenting evidence demonstrating
that at some identifiable point in time a likelihood of confu-
sion existed and that RCI unreasonably delayed thereafter in
taking responsive legal action. The district court concluded
5
Hence, the "conundrum" we described in Sara Lee, where we
explained that the trademark owner had been "on the horns of a dilemma":
If [the trademark owner] waits for substantial injury and evidence
of actual confusion, it may be faced with a laches defense. If it
rushes immediately into litigation, it may have little or no evi-
dence of actual confusion and real commercial damage, may
appear at a psychological disadvantage as "shooting from the hip"
and may even face a counterclaim for overly aggressive use of
litigation.
Sara Lee, 81 F.3d at 462 (internal citations omitted).
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 11
that, "Plaintiff knew the Defendants were infringing upon the
trademark since 1978. Accordingly, it unreasonably delayed
in enforcing its trademark rights." Ray Commc’ns, 760 F.
Supp. 2d at 550. Although the district court recognized the
centrality of the likelihood-of-confusion analysis in making
these determinations, see id. (noting that "in the context of the
laches defense, a trademark owner has no obligation to sue
until the likelihood of confusion looms large") (internal cita-
tions and quotation marks omitted), it erred both in its appli-
cation of the law and in its assessment of the evidence.
In Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, we identified several non-
exclusive factors that we consider in ascertaining the likeli-
hood of confusion between two trademarks, including: (1) the
distinctiveness of the senior mark; (2) the similarity of the two
marks; (3) the similarity of the goods and services that the
marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities employed by
the parties to transact their business; (5) the similarity of the
advertising used by the parties; (6) the defendant’s intent in
adopting the same or similar mark; and (7) actual confusion.
747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984). Particularly relevant
here, we also examine the scope of the parties’ geographic
markets. See What-A-Burger, 357 F.3d at 450 ("An informed
analysis of whether the likelihood of confusion exists cannot
rest solely upon a ‘side-by-side’ comparison of the marks
without regard to the marketplace in which they are used.")
(internal citation omitted). We have noted that "[a]lthough ‘a
senior federal registrant has superior priority which extends
nationwide,’ ‘there is no likelihood of confusion for a court
to enjoin unless and until the senior user shows a likelihood
of entry into the junior user’s territory.’" Id. (citing 4 J.
Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition § 26:33 (4th ed.)) (hereafter "McCarthy").
In this case, RCI asserts that it did not previously have a
viable trademark infringement claim because "the geographi-
cal separation of the radio broadcasting services by RCI and
Clear Channel in the past precluded that cause of action."
12 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
Appellant’s Br. at 13. The district court disagreed, ruling that
a likelihood of confusion — and thus a colorable claim for
infringement, triggering the laches period — existed as early
as 1978. The district court reasoned that RCI had a "national
presence" which "should have signaled to Plaintiff that there
was a high likelihood that Plaintiff’s market would intersect
with Defendants’." Ray Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 552.
The district court also determined that "there were substantial
periods that Plaintiff’s market actually did intersect with
Defendants’." Id. Finally, the district court emphasized Bill
Ray’s deposition testimony that Clear Channel’s use of the
AGRINET mark had been "causing confusion since the late
1970s." Id. at 552. The district court’s analysis is flawed in
several respects.
First, we are persuaded that the evidence in the record is
insufficient to establish (as a matter of law) that RCI had a
national presence such that the AGRINET mark would likely
be associated with RCI even in territories in which RCI did
not broadcast. See, e.g., What-A-Burger, 357 F.3d at 450 n.7
("There is no evidence — nor can we imagine any — that
consumers are currently likely to be confused about whether
the burgers served by Virginia What-A-Burger come from
Texas or Virginia. By contrast, there might be a great confu-
sion generated by someone who erects a replica of a McDon-
ald’s restaurant in some geographically remote area and
begins serving similar food."). RCI contends, and the trade
publications substantiate, that RCI has traditionally kept its
network of affiliated stations in the mid-Atlantic region from
Pennsylvania to South Carolina. Although RCI concedes that
it has occasionally maintained affiliated stations in the South,
Midwest, and even on the West Coast, it asserts that these
were generally short term affiliations not lasting more than
one to three years. The trade publications, on which both par-
ties and the district court rely, support this assertion.6
6
The NAFB Directory and AgriMarketing magazine excerpts in the
appellate record indicate that, aside from its long-term presence in the
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 13
In addition, even if the evidence were to support the district
court’s conclusion that RCI had a national presence, this fact
alone would be insufficient to establish a likelihood of confu-
sion triggering the laches period. While evidence of geo-
graphic separation of the parties’ markets may in some
instances establish that no likelihood of confusion existed, the
converse is not necessarily true. Given that "[m]ere use of a
mark that is similar or even identical to a registered trademark
does not a fortiori establish infringement," id. at 450, a fact-
intensive analysis of the Pizzeria Uno factors is essential.
The district court’s determination that a likelihood of con-
fusion existed because "there were substantial periods that
Plaintiff’s market actually did intersect with Defendants," Ray
Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 552, is similarly flawed. The
district court relied for this determination on the trade publi-
cations, which showed that RCI had an affiliate in Oklahoma
from 1991-1993 and in Texas from 1998-2003, during which
times Clear Channel operated under the names Oklahoma
Agrinet and Agrinet of the High Plains in Oklahoma and
Texas, respectively. Although the district court neglected to
address Clear Channel’s use of Tennessee Agrinet, we note
that there is no evidence in the record that RCI has ever had
a presence in Tennessee. RCI asserts that it listed a single
Oklahoma station in the NAFB Directory and AgriMarketing
magazine from 1991-1993 because of an agreement it had
with the USA Radio Network (called a "cross affiliation" or
mid-Atlantic region, RCI maintained affiliates in the following states dur-
ing certain discrete intervals: 1990 (CA, WA); 1991 (AR, CA, IL, IA, MI,
OK, TX, WA); 1993 (AL, CA, FL, GA, IL, IN, ME, MA, MI, MS, MT,
OK, WA, WY); 1995 (FL, GA); 1996 (FL, GA); 1997 (FL, GA); 1997
(FL, GA); 1998 (IL, NY, OH, TX, WA, WI); 1999 (IL, NY, OH, TX, UT,
WI); 2000 (OH, SD, TX, UT, WI); 2001/2002 (IL, NY, OH, TX, UT, WI);
2002/2003 (DE, IL, NY, OH, TX, UT, WI); 2005 (NY, IA); 2006 (IA).
Although the trade publications indicate that RCI had short-term affiliates
in a number of Midwestern, Western, and Southern states primarily in and
around 1991-1993, its presence has been heavily concentrated in the Mid-
Atlantic region since the late 1970s.
14 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
"cross distribution agreement") which permitted USA Radio
Network stations to carry AGRINET programming, but did
not require that they do so. RCI further maintains that the
USA Radio Network did not sell advertising for RCI.7 Clear
Channel asserts that its broadcasters have never used Agrinet
of the High Plains to identify on-air programming and does
not address whether its listing of Agrinet of the High Plains
in the NAFB Directory and AgriMarketing magazine was
likely to cause confusion among advertisers.
The trade publication entries alone, while sufficient to
establish that RCI knew of Clear Channel’s use of the AGRI-
NET mark, are insufficient to establish as a matter of law that
RCI had a viable claim for trademark infringement with
respect to Oklahoma Agrinet, Agrinet of the High Plains, or
Tennessee Agrinet. The district court failed to consider the
Pizzeria Uno factors, or to conduct a comparable fact-
intensive analysis of likelihood of confusion beyond its over-
reliance on limited evidence of the geographic proximity of
the parties’ markets in Oklahoma and Texas at certain brief
intervals (which, as noted supra, is irrelevant in any event to
Clear Channel’s use of Tennessee Agrinet). Instead, the dis-
trict court emphasized that, "Mr. Ray has himself stated that
Defendants’ use of Agrinet has been damaging Plaintiff by
causing confusion since the late 1970s." Id. at 552. In essence,
the court found that Bill Ray conceded a necessary element of
Clear Channel’s affirmative defense. See id. at 553 ("Ray con-
cedes that he does not believe the Defendants’ use of the mark
is more confusing now than in the past.").8
7
The only evidence RCI offers in support of these assertions, however,
is the deposition testimony of Bill and Lisa Ray, both of whom stated that
they could not recall whether the USA Radio Network affiliates carried
the RCI AGRINET broadcasts during the time period in question. Neither
Bill nor Lisa Ray could recall the years in which this affiliate agreement
existed, and Lisa Ray stated that she could not recall anyone who worked
for the USA Radio Network during this time period.
8
The district court observed more than once that RCI had failed to spec-
ify how Clear Channel’s use of AGRINET is more confusing at present
than in the past. Indeed, the court opined that
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 15
As noted supra, the question whether a trademark owner
has knowledge of an infringing use of its mark, thereby trig-
gering the laches period, is an objective determination. In this
case, the district court erred in relying solely upon the subjec-
tive testimony of a lay witness as establishing that evidence
of a likelihood of confusion existed at a prior time as a matter
of law. If, on remand, the district court applies the Pizzeria
Uno factors and concludes that a likelihood of confusion
arose in the 1990s, when the trade publications indicate that
both parties had affiliates using the AGRINET mark in Okla-
homa and Texas, then the period of laches is properly mea-
sured from that time, not from the late 1970s.9
2.
With respect to the second prong of the laches defense,
whether the trademark owner unreasonably or inexcusably
delayed, we reiterate that delay must be measured from the
Plaintiff would like the court to believe that Plaintiff did not pre-
viously have a colorable trademark claim as their business had
not expanded into defendants’ territory, and thus there was not a
likelihood of confusion. Yet, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
explain how circumstances have now changed to cause the confu-
sion needed for its current trademark suit. (Plaintiff has never
even articulated exactly when the Defendants actually infringed.)
Ray Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 550 (citation omitted). The district
court apparently (albeit implicitly) misapprehends the parties’ respective
evidentiary burdens. RCI has not moved for summary judgment on its
trademark infringement claims, and Clear Channel bears the risk of non-
persuasion on its laches defense. RCI’s inability to satisfy its burden on
the merits of its trademark infringement claims (as to which we express
no opinion) is not an appropriate basis for resolution of Clear Channel’s
motion for summary judgment on its affirmative defense of laches.
9
Of course, as stated supra, this reasoning does not apply to Tennessee
Agrinet, given that RCI did not have affiliates in Tennessee in the 1990s
or at any other time prior to filing this suit. In addition, Clear Channel’s
claim that it has never used Agrinet of the High Plains in conjunction with
its on-air programming in Texas is relevant to this analysis.
16 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
period at which the trademark owner knew or should have
known of an infringing use. Having set forth supra that the
district court should determine on remand when the laches
clock began to run in this case, we do not consider whether
the record shows as a matter of law, as suggested by RCI, that
RCI’s delay was reasonable. We do note, however, that RCI’s
argument that it granted various licenses or otherwise gave
permission to Clear Channel’s predecessors to use the AGRI-
NET mark is relevant to the reasonableness of its delay. Thus,
the district court may in its discretion consider the effect of
any evidence of such licenses or permission on the reason-
ableness of RCI’s delay, bearing in mind that credibility
determinations are not fodder for summary judgment proceed-
ings. See Gray v. Spillman, 925 F.2d 90, 95 (4th Cir. 1991)
("It is not our job to weigh the evidence . . . or to disregard
stories that seem hard to believe. Those tasks are for the
jury.") (citation omitted).
3.
With respect to the third prong of the laches defense,
whether the trademark owner’s delay has resulted in undue
prejudice to the defendant, the district court determined that
Clear Channel has suffered both economic and evidentiary
prejudice. Upon our de novo review, however, we are not per-
suaded that such elements are established on this record as a
matter of law.
A defendant suffers economic prejudice when it relies on
the trademark owner’s inaction by developing a valuable busi-
ness around the trademark. See 6 McCarthy § 31:12 ("Laches
is a good defense if plaintiff’s long failure to exercise its legal
rights has caused defendant to rely to its detriment by building
up a valuable business around its trademark."); Bridge-
stone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Auto. Club De L’Quest De
La France, 245 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Economic
prejudice arises from investment in and development of the
trademark, and the continued commercial use and economic
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 17
promotion of a mark over a prolonged period adds weight to
the evidence of prejudice."). Evidentiary prejudice encom-
passes such things as lost, stale or degraded evidence or wit-
nesses whose memories have faded or who have died. 6
McCarthy § 31:12 (citing Nartron Corp. v. STMicroelec-
tronics, Inc., 305 F.3d 397, 412 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
538 U.S. 907 (2003).
With respect to economic prejudice, Clear Channel asserts
that its long-term use of the AGRINET marks demonstrates
that it has built up a valuable business in reliance upon RCI’s
inaction. See Appellee’s Br. at 31 (stating that "[t]he Okla-
homa and Tennessee Agrinet operations under those names
since the 1970s — with multiple affiliate radio stations in
those and adjoining states — constitute a valuable and estab-
lished business enterprise"). The district court agreed, reason-
ing that
Defendants have been using the Agrinet marks for a
prolonged period; Defendants starting [sic] using
Tennessee Agrinet, Oklahoma Agrinet, and Ken-
tucky Agrinet over 30 years ago, and the newer
marks in the late 1990’s. Accordingly, Defendants
have built up a valuable business around the trade-
mark.
Ray Commc’ns, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 554.
The difficulty with the court’s analysis is that mere delay
not resulting in injury to an infringing defendant is insuffi-
cient to foreclose an award of relief for infringement. See,
e.g., Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 282 (1961)
(laches requires proof of prejudice to the party asserting the
defense); see also Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc.,
350 F.2d 609, 615 (7th Cir. 1965) (opining that if "prejudice
could consist merely of expenditures in promoting the
infringed name, then relief would have to be denied in practi-
cally every case of delay"); Internet Specialties West, Inc. v.
18 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 992-93 (9th Cir.
2009) (same). Clear Channel’s assertion that it would suffer
economic injury if enjoined from using AGRINET, without
reference to any evidence beyond the length of time it has
used the mark, is simply insufficient to establish economic
prejudice.
Furthermore, although we are persuaded that Clear Channel
has failed to meet its burden as to economic prejudice in the
first instance, we note the salience of RCI’s argument that
Clear Channel’s voluntary cessation of its use of both Ken-
tucky Agrinet and Tennessee Agrinet undermines its claim of
economic prejudice. See Schafer Co. v. Innco Mgmt. Corp.,
797 F. Supp. 477 (E.D.N.C. 1992) (finding that defendant
failed to prove prejudice for purposes of laches defense where
defendant voluntarily changed terminology on infringing
sign), aff’d, 995 F.2d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). RCI
points out, and the district court recognized, that two of Clear
Channel’s employees testified that these changes did not
affect the company’s revenue.
Specifically, Clear Channel permanently ceased its use of
Kentucky Agrinet in 1993 at the request of Bill Ray, instead
using Kentucky AgNet, and Clear Channel broadcaster Jack
Crowner testified that this change did not affect revenue. In
addition, Clear Channel ceased its use of Tennessee Agrinet
for one year, instead using Tennessee Ag Network and Ten-
nessee AgNet, and Clear Channel employee Bill Storey testi-
fied that this change also did not affect revenue. The district
court reasoned that the evidence that Clear Channel stopped
using Tennessee Agrinet for one year was not appropriate for
consideration on summary judgment because "this cessation
was for settlement purposes, statements regarding its effect
would not be admissible in court." Ray Commc’ns, 760 F.
Supp. 2d at 554 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 408; Fiberglass Insula-
tors, Inc. v. Dupuy, 856 F.2d 652, 654-55 (4th Cir. 1998)).
This reasoning is untenable.
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 19
As relevant here, Rule 408 provides that evidence of con-
duct or a statement made during compromise negotiations
about the claim "is not admissible — on behalf of any party
— either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a dis-
puted claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or
a contradiction." Fed. R. Evid. 408. While the reason Clear
Channel ceased using the name Tennessee Agrinet for one
year (as a part of settlement efforts) may be inadmissible
under Rule 408, the fact that it did so is not. This information
is public and otherwise discoverable and accordingly is not
covered by Rule 408. On remand, the district court should
consider both the fact of voluntary name changes and the
highly-relevant testimony regarding the fiscal effects of the
same in conjunction with Clear Channel’s claim that it would
suffer economic prejudice if enjoined from using RCI’s
federally-registered AGRINET mark.
With respect to evidentiary prejudice, Clear Channel argues
that "the defense of this lawsuit has been seriously prejudiced
by the absence of pertinent documentation" and, in any event,
"determining whether loss of evidence resulted in prejudice to
Clear Channel is a matter left to the district court’s discre-
tion." Appellee’s Br. at 29 (citing Pro Football, Inc., 565 F.3d
at 883). The only controverted issue that Clear Channel iden-
tifies to which a lack of testimonial or documentary evidence
might be pertinent, however, is RCI’s argument that it granted
various licenses permitting Clear Channel to use the AGRI-
NET mark.
Manifestly, however, the lack of evidence supporting the
existence of these alleged licenses prejudices RCI, not Clear
Channel. Thus, we are persuaded that while there do appear
to be deficiencies in the available evidence due to, inter alia,
the passage of time, a computer crash at RCI, and routine
purging of files by RCI, Clear Channel failed to articulate
how this would prejudice Clear Channel’s defense specifi-
cally. Similarly, the district court erred in failing to indicate
how the lack of available evidence attributable to RCI is rele-
20 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
vant to one or more material issues in dispute and would
undermine Clear Channel’s ability to prove its laches defense.
See Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 58 (1st Cir. 2008)
("Where courts have allowed a laches defense to be premised
on an evidence-based predicate, they have done so because
that evidence would have been relevant to one or more essen-
tial issues in dispute between the parties."). In sum, as our sis-
ter circuit has aptly stated, "because the burden of proving
laches rests with the proponent of that defense, the defendant
had an obligation to adduce specific evidence of prejudice in
order to thwart the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
The defendant failed to carry this burden; the record before
the district court contained no legally cognizable evidence of
prejudice. That is the end of the line." Id. (internal citation
omitted).
C.
Finally, we consider whether the district court erred in
entering final judgment in favor of Clear Channel and dis-
missing RCI’s claims without addressing whether laches bars
all forms of relief sought. RCI argues that the district court
erred in failing to consider whether granting summary judg-
ment to Clear Channel on the affirmative defense of laches
necessarily barred both damages and injunctive relief. Clear
Channel argues that RCI failed to preserve this argument for
appeal or, in the alternative, that "there is no absolute rule that
laches may not bar all relief where a plaintiff has unreason-
ably slept on his rights to the detriment of the defendant."
Appellee’s Br. at 33.
The parties concede, and we agree, that laches may act as
a bar to both monetary and injunctive relief under certain cir-
cumstances, but that this result is not automatic. See Sara Lee,
81 F.3d at 461 ("[T]he doctrine is sparingly applied where, as
here, a plaintiff seeks only equitable relief"); Skippy, Inc. v.
CPC Int’l, Inc., 674 F.2d 209, 212 (4th Cir. 1982) ("While the
availability of laches as a defense to injunctive relief may be
RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 21
limited . . . laches will bar a claim for damages or bad faith
infringement."). As we stated in Sara Lee, "in consideration
of the public interest, estoppel by laches may not be invoked
to deny injunctive relief if it is apparent that the infringing use
is likely to cause confusion." 81 F.3d at 461 (citing 4 McCar-
thy § 31.04[1]); see also Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Champion
Prods., Inc., 686 F.2d 1040, 1044 (3d Cir.) ("Because laches
is an equitable doctrine, its application is inextricably bound
up with the nature and quality of the plaintiff’s claim on the
merits relative to a prospective injunction."), cert. denied, 459
U.S. 1087 (1982).
We further noted that "[c]ases involving the denial of
injunctive relief usually present one or more aggravating fac-
tors, causing the balance of the equities (which has, at that
point, favored the defendant by virtue of the delay-and-
prejudice analysis) to shift even further to the defendant’s
advantage." Sara Lee, 81 F.3d at 461 n.8 (citing 4 McCarthy
§ 31.03[3][b] (reviewing cases)). These factors include: "(1)
delay during which the mark passed into use as a generic
name, (2) a grossly long period of delay, (3) dubious proof of
likelihood of confusion, (4) doubt as to the plaintiff’s title to
the mark, (5) prior business dealings between the parties that
result in the plaintiff impliedly consenting to the defendant’s
infringement, and (6) the defendant’s good-faith development
of a specific territorial area." Id.
The district court did not discuss the effect of laches on the
availability of injunctive relief in this case, nor did it mention
the presence of aggravating factors. As RCI points out, the
district court "apparently assumed without analysis that a
showing of laches barred all relief and the entire cause of
action." Appellant’s Br. at 14. Clear Channel essentially urges
us to accept on faith that the district court implicitly found
such "plus factors" present here. We decline to do so. If on
remand the district court once again finds Clear Channel enti-
tled to summary judgment on its affirmative defense of
22 RAY COMMUNICATIONS v. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
laches, it must explicitly address the availability, or lack
thereof, of prospective injunctive relief.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment and
remand this action to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. On remand, if the district court
deems further summary judgment proceedings on laches
appropriate, the district court should conduct a fact-intensive
inquiry into the adequacy of Clear Channel’s showing, and of
the evidence of record as a whole, to determine whether and
when RCI had knowledge of a viable claim for infringement,
thereby triggering the laches period. In addition, the court
must consider what specific evidence, if any, Clear Channel
has presented that it has been prejudiced by RCI’s delay in fil-
ing the instant trademark infringement action. If the court
again finds that summary judgment is appropriate on the basis
that Clear Channel has provided sufficient evidence to obtain
a directed verdict if not controverted at trial and that no genu-
ine disputes of material fact exist, it must nevertheless explic-
itly address whether laches bars RCI’s claim for injunctive
relief. If the district court concludes that Clear Channel is not
entitled to summary judgment on laches, the court is free to
consider whether the affirmative defenses of acquiescence or
abandonment have been established, or otherwise, it is free to
proceed as it sees fit to bring this action to conclusion.
VACATED AND REMANDED