Buc-ee’s, Choke Canyon make final pitch
Buc-ee’s, a popular chain of Texas pit stops, fought hard to build its reputation and wants a San Antonio-based competitor to stop “riding its coattails” by using a logo that confuses highway travelers into pulling off at a rival business, the company’s lawyer told jurors in his closing statement Monday in Houston.
“We don’t want to put Choke Canyon out of business,” said Buc-ee’s lawyer, Tracy Richardson, poised between poster boards displaying similarly colored T-shirts, beer koozies and plastic grocery bags with the animal logos from the two rival chains. Buc-ee’s just wants Choke Canyon’s owner to curtail what it views as an unfair ad campaign: “We just want him to stop using the logo.”
Richardson and the lead attorney for Choke Canyon offered closing pitches to jurors before they began deliberations Monday afternoon, following a week of testimony about the dueling roadside travel centers in a federal trademark case before U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison. The jury of three women and nine men will resume deliberations Tuesday.
Appeal to jurors’ intelligence
The lawsuit brought by megachain Buc-ee’s claims Choke Canyon’s alligator logo, posed against a circular yellow backdrop, is too similar to the bucktoothed beaver that is synonymous with its 33 gas stops. The Buc-ee’s chain, headquartered in Lake Jackson, also contends Choke Canyon illegally mimicked its store offerings, including friendly service, ample stock and plentiful, clean bathrooms.
But Charles Hanor, who represents the San Antionio based Choke Canyon, told jurors Buc-ee’s presented no evidence that shoppers had been confused by the two businesses. Hanor appealed to the jurors’ intelligence in his closing remarks, pointing to one of two blown-up photographs he’d set up on each side of him showing the two rival gas stations.
“Do you think any reasonable person could pull up to this store and think it’s a Buc-ee’s?” he said. “No way. Sure, they have similar goods, but it’s whether people think they’re in the wrong place.”
Witnesses delved into the personal histories and philosophies of the two chains’ founders, the stores’ sales numbers and marketing plans, and expert surveys assessing whether customers were confused. Jurors have been asked to decide if Choke Canyon’s branding confused customers familiar with Buc-ee’s logo and merchandise and profited through unfair competition.
Judge: It’s a balancing act
Buc-ee’s counsel argued that Choke Canyon intentionally used a cartoon animal in its logo to lure drivers to exit the highway and provided similar items and services inside the travel center to hoodwink shoppers.
Hanor said the two trademarks are quite different, as are the offerings. The alligator is advertising a chain that specializes in barbecue, he told jurors, noting Buc-ee’s complained in court about its road stop competitor only when Choke Canyon sought to open a chain in New Braunfels, where Buc-ee’s had operations.
Trademark law doesn’t give either company a hold on any one attribute of their logo. Instead, the jury will consider the strength of Buc-ee’s logo, the similarity between the two logos and the stores’ product lines and whether Choke Canyon set out to or did confuse customers.
It’s a balancing act, the judge explained in his directions to the jury. The goals of trademark law are to protect the public from being misled, to protect the rights of businesses to identify themselves in public and to protect the public interest in fair competition, Ellison said.