A.I.G. Agency, Inc. v. American International Group, No. 21-1948 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Two insurance-related companies claim the name “AIG.” Agency is a family-owned insurance broker in Missouri. Agency allegedly began calling itself “AIG” around 1958. International is an insurance company incorporated in 1967. International first used the “AIG” mark sometime between 1968 and 1970. International obtained a federal trademark registration for “AIG” in 1981, which is still active. Agency sued International in 2017 over International’s use of “AIG.” Relevant here, Agency alleged common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition along with violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125. The district court agreed with International that Agency’s claims were barred by the doctrine of laches, so it granted summary judgment in favor of International and dismissed Agency’s claims. On appeal, Agency argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it weighed disputed facts in International’s favor.
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Plaintiff’s lawsuit for trademark infringement over International’s use of the “AIG” trademark. The court held that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of laches. The court reasoned that the district court abused its discretion by not applying for progressive encroachment and did not announce any test on which it relied for determining when a likelihood of confusion arose. It also did not meaningfully analyze the strength of International’s mark at the relevant times, whether Agency intended to confuse the public, the degree of care expected of potential customers, or the evidence of actual confusion.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Trademarks. The district court erred in finding plaintiff's suit for trademark infringement over defendant's use of the "A.I.G." trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches; the district court abused its discretion by not applying the correct analysis for progressive encroachment; further, when the court views the facts through the lens of the proper six-factor analysis - see Roederer v. J. Garcia Carrion, S.A., 569 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2009) - it finds genuine disputes of material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment on the basis of laches; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
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.