Fair Isaac Corp., et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, et al., No. 10-2281 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseFICO brought suit against three credit bureaus: Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union, as well as against VantageScore, the credit bureaus' joint venture. The suit alleged antitrust, trademark infringement, false-advertising, and other claims. FICO, Experian, and VantageScore appealed from the district court's judgment. The court held that FICO failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any antitrust injury that would entitle it to seek damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12-27, and FICO failed to demonstrate the threat of an immediate injury that might support injunctive relief under section 16. The court also held that there was no genuine issue of material fact that consumers in this market immediately understood "300-850" to describe the qualities and characteristics of FICO's credit score and therefore, the district court did not err in finding the mark to be merely descriptive. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) relied on FICO's false representation in deciding whether to issue the "300-850" trademark registration. The court agreed with the district court that VantageScore was not a licensee and therefore was not estopped from challenging the mark under either theory of agency or equity. The court finally held that FICO's false advertising claims were properly dismissed and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for attorneys' fees.
Court Description: Civil Case - antitrust - trademark. District court did not err in dismissing antitrust claim of Fair Isaac Corporation for failing to show antitrust injury that would entitled it to seek damages under sec. 4 of the Clayton Act or injunctive relief under section 16. District court did not erred in concluding the registered "300-850" mark was merely descriptive. Jury's findings that FICO made false representation during trademark registration process, that FICO knew the representations were false, and that the trademark office relied on the false representations were supported by the evidence. District court's denial of motion for judgment as a matter of law on claim of licensee estoppel is affirmed, as VantageScore is not a licensee and not estopped from challenging the mark under a theory of agency or equity. Dismissal of false advertising claim is affirmed as the statement was not literally or implicitly false. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys fees.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.