CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CONSUMER BRANDS LLC

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CONSUMER BRANDS LLC
Submitted to: Hon. Harold K. Novotny (Ret.), Mediator Novotny ADR Services LLC 140 Broadway, Suite 2810 New York, NY 10005
Mediation Session Date: February 15, 2023
Case References: Meridian Consumer Brands LLC v. Brindoval Home Goods Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09483 (S.D.N.Y., Hon. Patricia M. Albright) TTAB Opposition No. 91/278,415
Date of Submission: February 13, 2023
Prepared and Submitted by:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 555-6100 Facsimile: (212) 555-6101
Alan Ngo, Responsible Partner (ango@calderwoodharkness.com) Marcus Delgado, Billing Partner (mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com) Christy Bauer, Lead Associate (cbauer@calderwoodharkness.com) Peter Vassiliev, Working Associate (pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com)
Counsel for Meridian Consumer Brands LLC 450 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor New York, NY 10016
CONFIDENTIALITY LEGEND: This mediation statement is submitted in confidence for the sole use of the Mediator pursuant to the Court's mediation order dated January 20, 2023 (Dkt. No. 42). This statement is not to be disclosed to opposing counsel, opposing party, or any third party. The contents herein constitute protected mediation communications within the meaning of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4547, the Court's individual mediation rules, and the confidentiality provisions of the parties' executed Mediation Agreement dated January 27, 2023. All statements, positions, evaluations, and settlement proposals contained in this document are inadmissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and all other applicable rules and law.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF DISPUTE
Meridian Consumer Brands LLC ("MCB" or the "Company") respectfully submits this Confidential Mediation Statement to the Honorable Harold K. Novotny (Ret.) in advance of the mediation session scheduled for February 15, 2023. This statement is intended to provide the Mediator with a comprehensive understanding of MCB's legal positions, the factual record developed to date, and MCB's settlement objectives, so that the Mediator may facilitate a productive and well-informed discussion between the parties.
MCB is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York, New York, that operates as a leading consumer packaged goods company across three core product verticals: household cleaning, personal care, and home fragrance. The Company maintains a diverse portfolio of branded and co-manufactured products distributed through major grocery, club, mass-market retail, and e-commerce channels throughout all fifty states and select international markets. MCB is a portfolio company of Waypoint Capital Partners LLC, a mid-market private equity firm based in New York that acquired MCB in 2019 in a leveraged buyout transaction valued at approximately $625 million. Since the acquisition, MCB has undertaken significant brand-building and operational-improvement initiatives, and the Company's management team — led by Chief Executive Officer Sandra Kwan, General Counsel Thomas R. Hennessy, and Vice President of Brand Management Rachel Dominguez — has achieved meaningful revenue growth and market-share expansion. In fiscal year 2022, MCB generated approximately $387 million in total revenue, a figure that reflects the strength and commercial value of its brand portfolio, and particularly the MERIDIAN family of marks at issue in this dispute.
This dispute arises from the respondent Brindoval Home Goods Inc.'s ("Brindoval") unauthorized adoption and commercial use of the mark "MERIDIAN FRESH" for a private-label line of household cleaning products — a mark that is confusingly similar to MCB's long-established and federally registered MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN trademarks. Brindoval is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Edina, Minnesota, that operates as a regional big-box home goods retailer. Brindoval operates 148 retail store locations across twelve Midwestern and Mountain West states and maintains a growing e-commerce platform at www.crestviewhomegoods.com. Brindoval is a substantial commercial enterprise, with fiscal year 2022 revenue of approximately $2.1 billion. Its executive leadership includes Chief Executive Officer Douglas P. Lindstrom, General Counsel Karen A. Whitfield, and Vice President of Private Label Development Nathan Cho. Brindoval is represented in this litigation by Halverson McKay & Pruitt LLP, with Gregory T. Halverson serving as lead partner.
In or about July 2022, Brindoval launched its MERIDIAN FRESH private-label cleaning product line across all 148 of its retail locations and on its e-commerce platform. The MERIDIAN FRESH line encompasses all-purpose spray cleaner, glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and dish soap — products that directly overlap with, and compete against, MCB's MERIDIAN-branded cleaning products, which have been sold continuously in commerce since 2011. Brindoval's adoption of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark was preceded by the filing of a federal trademark application on May 12, 2022, notwithstanding the existence of MCB's well-known, federally registered marks in the same product class.
MCB initiated this action to protect the integrity of its trademark rights and the substantial goodwill it has built over more than a decade. Through this mediation, MCB seeks a commercially reasonable resolution that provides monetary compensation for the harm already inflicted by Brindoval's infringement and establishes a comprehensive coexistence framework with prospective brand-protection terms sufficient to prevent future consumer confusion. MCB believes that a negotiated settlement can achieve these objectives more efficiently and with greater certainty than continued litigation, and MCB enters the mediation session prepared to engage in good faith negotiations toward that end.
II. MCB'S TRADEMARK PORTFOLIO AND THE STRENGTH OF ITS MARKS
A threshold issue in any trademark dispute is the strength and scope of the senior user's rights. MCB's trademark rights in the MERIDIAN family of marks are substantial, well-documented, and — as discussed below — have been recognized by the Court in the context of MCB's successful motion for preliminary injunctive relief. This Section sets forth the relevant registrations, the commercial strength of the marks, and the basis for their high degree of legal protection.
A. Federal Registrations
MCB is the owner of three federal trademark registrations covering its MERIDIAN family of marks for cleaning products, all issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and recorded on the Principal Register:
1.  U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506 — MERIDIAN (standard character mark). Registered August 14, 2012, in International Class 3, for cleaning preparations, including all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, and surface cleaning sprays. This registration has been maintained in full force and effect, all required maintenance filings under Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act have been timely submitted, and the registration has achieved incontestable status pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. As an incontestable registration, it constitutes conclusive evidence of MCB's exclusive right to use the MERIDIAN mark in connection with the registered goods.
2.  U.S. Registration No. 5,034,771 — MERIDIAN CLEAN (standard character mark). Registered October 18, 2016, in International Class 3, for cleaning preparations, including all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, and floor cleaning solutions. This registration is valid and subsisting, and a Declaration of Continued Use under Section 8 has been filed. The registration is approaching incontestable status, with the relevant period of continuous use well underway.
3.  U.S. Registration No. 5,589,320 — MERIDIAN (stylized logo incorporating a distinctive wave device). Registered July 10, 2018, in International Class 3, for cleaning preparations. The stylized logo features the word "MERIDIAN" rendered in a proprietary typeface accompanied by a flowing wave device element that has become a signature visual identifier of MCB's cleaning product line. This registration is valid and subsisting.
All three registrations are in full force and effect, and MCB has diligently maintained them through all required filings. Collectively, these registrations establish MCB's exclusive rights to the MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks, as well as the associated wave-device logo, in connection with cleaning preparations in International Class 3. MCB first used the MERIDIAN mark in commerce for cleaning products in approximately 2011 — more than a decade before Brindoval's adoption of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark — establishing clear priority of use.
B. Commercial Strength and Market Presence
Beyond its registered rights, MCB's MERIDIAN marks enjoy extraordinary commercial strength as a result of over a decade of continuous, high-volume sales and substantial marketing investment. Since 2011, MCB has sold household cleaning products — including all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, and floor cleaners — under the MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks without interruption. The Company has steadily expanded its product offerings and distribution footprint over this period.
In fiscal year 2022, MCB's MERIDIAN-branded household cleaning product line generated approximately $94.5 million in revenue, representing approximately 24.4% of MCB's total $387 million in annual revenue. The MERIDIAN cleaning line is thus not merely an ancillary brand within MCB's portfolio; it is a flagship product line that constitutes nearly one-quarter of the Company's total business. These revenue figures are supported by detailed financial records and have been attested to by MCB's Chief Financial Officer in connection with the litigation.
MCB has invested a cumulative total of approximately $47.2 million in advertising and promotion of the MERIDIAN cleaning product line from 2011 through 2022 — an average of approximately $3.93 million per year over the twelve-year period. These expenditures encompass national television advertising, digital and social media marketing campaigns, in-store point-of-sale displays, trade promotion, coupon and sampling programs, and co-marketing partnerships with major retail customers. The advertising investment has been sustained and consistent, reflecting a deliberate, long-term brand-building strategy.
MCB's MERIDIAN-branded products are distributed through a comprehensive network of retail and e-commerce channels throughout all fifty states. MCB's distribution partners include major national grocery chains, club warehouse retailers, mass-market discount retailers, and leading e-commerce platforms. The MERIDIAN brand enjoys broad consumer awareness across multiple geographic regions and retail environments, and MCB's products are typically merchandised alongside — and in direct competition with — other nationally recognized household cleaning brands.
C. Inherent and Acquired Distinctiveness
The legal strength of a trademark is assessed along two dimensions: inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning). MCB's MERIDIAN mark is strong on both dimensions.
As a matter of inherent distinctiveness, the word "MERIDIAN" — which in its ordinary usage refers to a line of longitude or the highest point of the sun's arc — bears no descriptive, suggestive, or otherwise meaningful relationship to cleaning products. When applied to household cleaning preparations, MERIDIAN is an arbitrary mark, which occupies the second-highest tier of the trademark distinctiveness spectrum (after coined or fanciful marks). Arbitrary marks are entitled to a broad scope of protection under the Lanham Act and the common law of trademarks. See Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9–11 (2d Cir. 1976).
In addition to its inherent distinctiveness, the MERIDIAN mark has acquired powerful secondary meaning through over a decade of continuous, exclusive use in commerce; annual branded sales approaching $95 million; cumulative advertising expenditures exceeding $47 million; and nationwide distribution through major retail and e-commerce channels. These indicia of acquired distinctiveness are precisely the types of evidence that courts routinely credit in finding strong secondary meaning. See, e.g., Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 873 (2d Cir. 1986). The combination of inherent arbitrariness and substantial acquired distinctiveness places MCB's MERIDIAN mark at the highest level of trademark strength, warranting the broadest scope of protection against junior users.
III. BRINDOVAL'S INFRINGING CONDUCT
A. Brindoval's Adoption and Use of MERIDIAN FRESH
On or about May 12, 2022, Brindoval filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97/412,558 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, seeking registration of the mark MERIDIAN FRESH (standard character format) in International Class 3 for cleaning products, including all-purpose sprays, glass cleaners, disinfecting wipes, and dish soap. At the time of this filing, MCB's three federal registrations for the MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks in the identical product class were already on the Principal Register and readily discoverable through even the most basic trademark search.
In July 2022, Brindoval proceeded to launch its MERIDIAN FRESH private-label cleaning product line across all 148 of its retail store locations in twelve Midwestern and Mountain West states and on its e-commerce website at www.crestviewhomegoods.com. The launch was accompanied by in-store promotional displays, featured placement on end-caps and aisle displays in Brindoval's retail stores, and prominent merchandising on the Brindoval website.
The MERIDIAN FRESH product line encompasses four product categories: all-purpose spray cleaner, glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and dish soap. Each of these product categories directly overlaps with, and competes against, MCB's own MERIDIAN-branded cleaning products. The products are aimed at the same consumers, satisfy the same functional needs, and are sold at comparable price points. Brindoval's decision to adopt a mark incorporating the dominant word "MERIDIAN" for products in the identical product class as MCB's registered marks represents a textbook case of likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act.
Brindoval's application for the MERIDIAN FRESH mark was published for opposition in the Official Gazette on September 6, 2022, triggering the thirty-day opposition period during which MCB was entitled to — and did — file its Notice of Opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
B. Confusingly Similar Trade Dress
Brindoval's infringement was not limited to the word mark MERIDIAN FRESH. In addition to adopting a confusingly similar word mark, Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH packaging employed a trade dress that is strikingly similar to MCB's own distinctive product packaging and registered logo.
Specifically, the MERIDIAN FRESH product packaging featured a teal-and-white color scheme that closely mirrors the color palette MCB has used consistently in connection with its MERIDIAN cleaning products. The packaging also incorporated a stylized wave device that is remarkably similar in shape, proportions, and visual impression to the wave device that is a central element of MCB's registered stylized MERIDIAN logo (U.S. Registration No. 5,589,320). The combined effect of these design choices — the similar dominant word element "MERIDIAN," the overlapping teal-and-white color scheme, and the near-identical wave device, all applied to identical product categories — creates an overwhelming likelihood of consumer confusion. Consumers encountering the MERIDIAN FRESH products in a retail environment or online are likely to believe, erroneously, that the products originate from, are affiliated with, or are endorsed or sponsored by MCB.
The similarity in trade dress is particularly significant because it suggests that Brindoval's adoption of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and packaging was not mere coincidence, but rather a deliberate effort to trade on the goodwill and consumer recognition that MCB has built in the MERIDIAN brand over more than a decade. This inference of deliberate copying is relevant both to the likelihood of confusion analysis and to the question of willfulness for purposes of enhanced damages.
C. Revenue Generated by Infringing Products
Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH product line has achieved significant commercial traction in the relatively brief period since its launch. Based on publicly available information and data obtained through the litigation, Brindoval generated approximately $6.8 million in gross revenue from sales of MERIDIAN FRESH products during the first five months following the line's launch (July 2022 through November 2022). On an annualized basis, this projects to approximately $16.32 million per year ($6.8 million ÷ 5 months × 12 months), though MCB anticipates that the actual annualized figure may be higher as Brindoval continues to expand distribution and awareness of the line.
These revenues were earned at the direct expense of MCB's goodwill and consumer trust in the MERIDIAN brand. Every consumer who purchased a MERIDIAN FRESH product believing it to be connected with MCB is a consumer whose brand expectations have been betrayed and whose association with MCB's quality standards has been undermined. Moreover, each such sale represents a lost opportunity for MCB — either a direct lost sale of a competing MERIDIAN product or a diminution in the strength and exclusivity of the MERIDIAN brand that MCB has invested tens of millions of dollars to build.
IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS
A. Pre-Litigation Demand
Upon learning of Brindoval's adoption and use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark, MCB acted promptly to protect its rights. On September 26, 2022, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, acting on behalf of MCB, transmitted a detailed cease-and-desist letter to Brindoval's General Counsel, Karen A. Whitfield, and to Brindoval's outside trademark counsel of record. The letter identified MCB's federal registrations, described the basis for MCB's likelihood-of-confusion claims, and demanded that Brindoval (a) immediately cease all use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and any confusingly similar trade dress, (b) withdraw its pending trademark application Serial No. 97/412,558, (c) destroy or remove from commerce all packaging, signage, and advertising materials bearing the MERIDIAN FRESH mark, and (d) provide an accounting of all revenues derived from sales of MERIDIAN FRESH products. The letter provided Brindoval with a fourteen-day response deadline and expressly reserved all of MCB's rights and remedies at law and in equity.
On October 10, 2022, Halverson McKay & Pruitt LLP responded on behalf of Brindoval. The response, signed by lead partner Gregory T. Halverson, denied that Brindoval's use of MERIDIAN FRESH infringed any of MCB's trademark rights. Specifically, Brindoval's counsel asserted that "MERIDIAN FRESH" was sufficiently distinct from "MERIDIAN" and "MERIDIAN CLEAN" to avoid consumer confusion, and that the addition of "FRESH" created a distinct commercial impression. Brindoval declined to cease use of the mark, declined to withdraw the pending application, and invited MCB to pursue its claims through appropriate legal channels if it disagreed with Brindoval's assessment. Brindoval's refusal to engage in a constructive dialogue left MCB with no alternative but to pursue formal legal remedies.
B. TTAB Proceeding
On October 14, 2022, MCB filed a Notice of Opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), captioned as Opposition No. 91/278,415, against Brindoval's pending trademark application Serial No. 97/412,558 for the mark MERIDIAN FRESH. The Notice of Opposition alleges that registration of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark would cause a likelihood of confusion with MCB's prior registered marks in violation of Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The opposition was timely filed within the thirty-day opposition period following publication of Brindoval's application in the Official Gazette on September 6, 2022.
The TTAB proceeding has been suspended pending the resolution of the parallel federal district court litigation. The Board granted the parties' joint motion to suspend on November 22, 2022, and the proceeding will remain suspended until further order of the Board or notification from the parties regarding the outcome of the SDNY action.
C. Federal Litigation
On November 7, 2022, MCB filed its Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, initiating the action captioned Meridian Consumer Brands LLC v. Brindoval Home Goods Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09483. The case was assigned to the Honorable Patricia M. Albright. The Complaint asserts three causes of action:
1.  Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) — alleging that Brindoval's use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark in connection with cleaning products is likely to cause confusion with MCB's federally registered MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks;
2.  False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) — alleging that Brindoval's use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and confusingly similar trade dress constitutes a false designation of origin likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of Brindoval's products; and
3.  Trademark Dilution under New York General Business Law § 360-l — alleging that Brindoval's use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark dilutes the distinctive quality of MCB's famous MERIDIAN mark under New York state law.
On November 18, 2022, MCB filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, seeking to enjoin Brindoval's continued use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress pending resolution of the action on the merits. The motion was supported by a memorandum of law, the Declaration of Rachel Dominguez (MCB's Vice President of Brand Management, attesting to the history of the MERIDIAN brand, its commercial strength, and instances of actual consumer confusion), and the expert Declaration of Dr. Elaine Furman, Ph.D. (presenting the results of a consumer confusion survey, discussed in detail in Section V below).
On December 5, 2022, Brindoval filed its Answer, denying MCB's substantive allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses, including laches, acquiescence, and fair use. Simultaneously, Brindoval filed a Counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, asserting that its MERIDIAN FRESH mark does not create a likelihood of confusion with MCB's marks and that Brindoval's use is lawful.
On December 19, 2022, the Court held a hearing on MCB's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Both parties presented oral argument, and the Court received the testimony of Rachel Dominguez and Dr. Elaine Furman by declaration, subject to cross-examination by Brindoval's counsel.
D. The Preliminary Injunction Order (January 9, 2023)
On January 9, 2023, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part MCB's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 38) (the "PI Order"). The key holdings and rulings of the PI Order are as follows:
•  Trade Dress Relief Granted: The Court ordered Brindoval to modify its MERIDIAN FRESH packaging trade dress within forty-five (45) days of the date of the Order. Specifically, the Court required Brindoval to (a) remove the wave device from all MERIDIAN FRESH packaging, and (b) change the teal-and-white color scheme to a color palette sufficiently distinct from MCB's established trade dress. The Court found that MCB demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the trade dress claims and that MCB would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, given the ongoing consumer confusion caused by the similar packaging.
•  Word Mark Relief Denied Without Prejudice: The Court declined to enjoin Brindoval's use of the word mark "MERIDIAN FRESH" pending trial. The Court noted that while MCB presented strong evidence of likely confusion, the balance of equities weighed against a preliminary injunction that would effectively require Brindoval to pull an entire product line from the market before a full trial on the merits. The Court expressly stated that its ruling was without prejudice to MCB's right to seek a permanent injunction at trial.
The PI Order is highly significant for purposes of the mediation. Although the Court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief MCB sought, the partial grant — requiring modification of Brindoval's trade dress — constitutes a judicial finding that MCB has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to at least a material portion of its claims and that MCB faces irreparable harm from ongoing confusion. These findings are powerful indicators of the strength of MCB's litigation position and should inform Brindoval's assessment of its exposure at trial. Courts grant preliminary injunctions only when the movant has satisfied a demanding standard, and the fact that Judge Albright found MCB's showing sufficient on the trade dress claims underscores the seriousness of Brindoval's infringement.
E. Discovery Status
Following entry of the PI Order, the litigation proceeded to the discovery phase. On January 23, 2023, the parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). MCB's initial disclosures identified key custodians, relevant documents, and the categories of damages MCB intends to pursue.
On January 30, 2023, MCB served its First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1 through 25) and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 1 through 30) on Brindoval. These discovery requests seek, among other things, detailed information regarding: the development and launch of the MERIDIAN FRESH product line; the selection process for the MERIDIAN FRESH name; any trademark searches or legal opinions Brindoval obtained before adopting the mark; Brindoval's internal communications regarding MCB's marks and the competitive landscape; Brindoval's financial records relating to MERIDIAN FRESH sales, revenues, costs, and profits; Brindoval's advertising and promotional expenditures for the MERIDIAN FRESH line; and any consumer complaints, inquiries, or other evidence of confusion.
Discovery is ongoing, and Brindoval's responses to MCB's discovery requests have not yet been received. MCB anticipates that the discovery process will yield additional evidence supportive of its claims, particularly with respect to Brindoval's knowledge of MCB's marks at the time of adoption, the financial performance of the MERIDIAN FRESH line, and the extent of consumer confusion.
V. CONSUMER CONFUSION EVIDENCE
Consumer confusion is the central issue in any trademark infringement action. MCB has marshaled compelling evidence of both survey-based and anecdotal confusion, as summarized below.
A. The Furman Survey
MCB retained Dr. Elaine Furman, Ph.D., a recognized expert in marketing and consumer psychology, to design and conduct a consumer confusion survey in connection with this dispute. Dr. Furman is a principal of Lakeshore Brand Consulting LLC, based in Chicago, Illinois. She holds a doctorate in marketing from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on topics including consumer perception, brand confusion, and survey methodology, and has been qualified as an expert witness in more than thirty trademark cases in federal courts across the country. MCB engaged Lakeshore Brand Consulting at a total engagement fee of $87,500, reflecting the rigorous survey design and extensive fieldwork required.
The survey was conducted in October 2022, utilizing a Squirt-design / modified Eveready protocol, which is a widely accepted and judicially recognized methodology for measuring likelihood of confusion in trademark cases. The Eveready/Squirt protocol presents respondents with the junior user's product (here, the MERIDIAN FRESH packaging) and asks open-ended questions designed to elicit whether the respondent associates the product with the senior user's brand. A control group is exposed to a comparable product bearing a different, non-confusing mark to establish a baseline noise rate that is subtracted from the test results to yield a net confusion figure.
The key parameters and results of the Furman Survey are as follows:
•  Sample Size: 612 consumers, screened for relevance (i.e., individuals who purchase household cleaning products and are primary or shared decision-makers for such purchases in their households).
•  Test Condition: Respondents in the test group were exposed to the MERIDIAN FRESH product packaging (as sold in Brindoval stores and on the Brindoval website) and asked a series of open-ended questions regarding the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the product.
•  Control Condition: Respondents in the control group were exposed to a comparable cleaning product bearing a fictitious mark ("Horizon Fresh") with neutral packaging designed to establish the background noise rate.
•  Raw Confusion Rate: 38.6% of respondents in the test group indicated that they believed the MERIDIAN FRESH product was made by, affiliated with, connected to, or sponsored by the maker of MERIDIAN CLEAN products or the MERIDIAN brand.
•  Control-Group Noise Rate: 7.2% of respondents in the control group provided a similarly confused response, establishing the baseline noise level.
•  Net Confusion Rate: 31.4% (38.6% raw confusion minus 7.2% control-group noise).
A net confusion rate of 31.4% is a remarkably high figure. Courts in the Second Circuit have consistently held that net confusion rates in the range of 15% to 20% or above are probative of a likelihood of confusion, and rates exceeding 25% are generally regarded as strongly supportive. See, e.g., McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2007) (noting that courts routinely find confusion rates of 15% or more to be significant); Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331, 1342 (2d Cir. 1975) (crediting consumer confusion evidence at lower rates). The 31.4% net confusion rate measured by Dr. Furman's survey places this case well within the range that courts find compelling, and indeed exceeds the threshold that many courts have found dispositive of the confusion issue.
The Court credited Dr. Furman's survey in the PI Order as evidence supporting MCB's likelihood of success on the merits. While the Court's analysis at the preliminary injunction stage was necessarily abbreviated, the Court's willingness to rely on the survey results reinforces their probative value and suggests that the survey will be a powerful piece of evidence at trial.
B. Anecdotal Evidence of Actual Confusion
In addition to the survey evidence, MCB has documented multiple instances of anecdotal actual confusion in the marketplace. MCB's customer service team has received reports from consumers who contacted MCB believing that MERIDIAN FRESH was a new product extension within the MERIDIAN line, or that MCB had entered into a partnership, licensing arrangement, or co-branding agreement with Brindoval. Several consumers expressed confusion about why a "MERIDIAN" product was being sold exclusively at Brindoval stores, while others inquired whether MCB had changed its packaging or launched a new sub-brand.
Rachel Dominguez, MCB's Vice President of Brand Management, attested to these instances of actual consumer confusion in her sworn declaration filed in support of MCB's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ms. Dominguez described specific consumer inquiries, identified the dates and channels through which the inquiries were received, and explained why the inquiries were indicative of confusion between MERIDIAN FRESH and MCB's MERIDIAN products. While anecdotal evidence is by its nature limited in scope, the Second Circuit has long recognized that even a small number of instances of actual confusion can constitute powerful evidence, because "the proverbial tip of the iceberg" — i.e., most confused consumers never bother to contact the senior user. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 260 (2d Cir. 1987).
VI. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION — POLAROID FACTOR ANALYSIS
The Second Circuit employs the eight-factor test set forth in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), to evaluate likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement cases. Although the analysis is holistic and no single factor is dispositive, MCB submits that the overwhelming majority of the Polaroid factors weigh decisively in its favor.
A. Strength of MCB's Mark
As discussed at length in Section II, MCB's MERIDIAN mark is both inherently strong (an arbitrary mark for cleaning products) and commercially strong (over a decade of continuous use, approximately $94.5 million in annual branded sales, and $47.2 million in cumulative advertising expenditure). The mark has achieved substantial secondary meaning, and its federal registrations — one of which is incontestable — provide conclusive evidence of its validity and MCB's exclusive right to use the mark. This factor weighs heavily in MCB's favor. Courts consistently afford the broadest protection to strong marks with both inherent and acquired distinctiveness. See Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co., 412 F.3d 373, 384 (2d Cir. 2005).
B. Similarity of the Marks
The marks at issue are highly similar. Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH mark incorporates the entirety of MCB's registered MERIDIAN mark as the dominant first word. The addition of the word "FRESH" — a descriptive or, at best, suggestive term commonly associated with cleaning products — adds minimal differentiation. It is well established that a junior user cannot avoid infringement by simply appending a descriptive modifier to a senior user's protected mark. See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Northgate Group, 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010). The dominant element of "MERIDIAN FRESH" is "MERIDIAN," which is the very mark MCB owns. Consumers encountering MERIDIAN FRESH are likely to perceive it as a line extension or sub-brand of the MERIDIAN family. This factor strongly favors MCB.
C. Proximity of the Products
Both MCB and Brindoval sell household cleaning products in International Class 3. The specific product categories — all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting products, and dish soap — are identical or closely overlapping. The products serve the same function, are used in the same manner, and are purchased by the same consumers. There is no meaningful distinction between the parties' respective product offerings that would serve to mitigate consumer confusion. This factor weighs decisively in MCB's favor.
D. Bridging the Gap
The "bridging the gap" factor considers the likelihood that the senior user will expand into the junior user's product market. Here, there is no gap to bridge. MCB and Brindoval already operate in the identical product market — household cleaning preparations. The products compete head-to-head on retail shelves and online. Because the products are in the same class and compete directly, this factor is effectively subsumed by the proximity analysis and provides further support for a finding of likelihood of confusion. See Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Rest., L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir. 2004).
E. Actual Confusion
As detailed in Section V, MCB has produced substantial evidence of actual confusion. Dr. Furman's consumer confusion survey demonstrated a 31.4% net confusion rate — a figure that is more than double the threshold courts in the Second Circuit typically find probative. In addition, MCB has documented anecdotal instances of actual consumer confusion, as attested in the Declaration of Rachel Dominguez. Actual confusion is often considered the most probative evidence of likelihood of confusion, and MCB's evidence on this factor is particularly strong. This factor weighs heavily in MCB's favor.
F. Defendant's Good Faith
Brindoval launched its MERIDIAN FRESH product line despite the existence of MCB's well-established and federally registered MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks in the identical product class. Any reasonably diligent trademark search — the type that a $2.1 billion retailer launching a new private-label brand should be expected to conduct — would have readily revealed MCB's prior registrations and extensive commercial presence. Moreover, Brindoval's adoption of a teal-and-white color scheme and wave device strikingly similar to MCB's registered trade dress strongly suggests that Brindoval was aware of MCB's branding and intentionally designed its MERIDIAN FRESH packaging to evoke MCB's MERIDIAN products in the minds of consumers. At minimum, the totality of the circumstances raises a strong inference of intentional free-riding on MCB's goodwill. This factor favors MCB, and if discovery reveals evidence of actual knowledge or deliberate copying, the inference of bad faith will be strengthened further. See Savin Corp. v. Savin Grp., 391 F.3d 439, 460 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that a finding of intentional copying creates a presumption of likelihood of confusion).
G. Quality of Defendant's Products
This factor cuts in MCB's favor regardless of the quality of Brindoval's products. If Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products are of inferior quality to MCB's MERIDIAN products, MCB's brand suffers reputational harm from consumer association of the MERIDIAN name with inferior goods — a classic form of trademark tarnishment. Conversely, if Brindoval's products are of comparable or even superior quality, the likelihood of consumer confusion is heightened, because consumers will have even less reason to suspect that the products originate from different sources. Either way, this factor supports MCB's position.
H. Sophistication of Consumers
Household cleaning products are low-cost, frequently purchased consumer goods. The typical consumer purchasing all-purpose spray cleaner, glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, or dish soap exercises a relatively low level of care and deliberation in the purchasing decision. These are impulse or routine purchases made quickly in a retail aisle or with a few clicks on an e-commerce platform, with limited attention to detailed brand distinctions. The low degree of consumer sophistication and the low purchase price substantially increase the likelihood that consumers will be confused by the similar marks. This factor strongly favors MCB. See Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 151 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that low-cost, routine purchases warrant a finding that consumers exercise less care).
Summary: Seven of eight Polaroid factors weigh strongly in MCB's favor, and the eighth (quality of defendant's products) supports MCB's position regardless of Brindoval's product quality. MCB submits that the Polaroid analysis overwhelmingly favors a finding of likelihood of confusion, and MCB expects to prevail on this issue at trial.
VII. DAMAGES AND FINANCIAL IMPACT
A. MCB's Damages Theories
MCB intends to pursue multiple theories of damages and equitable relief at trial. Each theory is briefly summarized below.
Lost Profits. MCB has experienced a diversion of sales from its established MERIDIAN cleaning product line as a direct result of Brindoval's adoption and promotion of the confusingly similar MERIDIAN FRESH mark. Consumers who purchased MERIDIAN FRESH products believing them to be associated with MCB, or who simply substituted MERIDIAN FRESH for MERIDIAN products in geographic markets where both were available, represent lost sales to MCB. The precise quantification of MCB's lost profits is a matter that will require analysis of Brindoval's detailed sales data — including unit volumes, geographic distribution, and channel-specific performance — which MCB is seeking through the discovery process. MCB's forensic accounting expert will be prepared to quantify lost profits with reasonable certainty once this data is available. MCB anticipates that its lost-profits claim will be substantial.
Reasonable Royalty. Even in the absence of proven lost sales, MCB is entitled under the Lanham Act to recover a reasonable royalty on Brindoval's sales of products bearing the infringing mark. Brindoval generated approximately $6.8 million in gross revenue from MERIDIAN FRESH sales during the first five months of the product line's existence (July through November 2022). On an annualized basis, this projects to approximately $16.32 million per year, and the figure will continue to grow as long as Brindoval is permitted to use the mark. A reasonable royalty — calculated as a percentage of Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH revenues that a willing licensor and willing licensee would have agreed upon in an arm's-length negotiation — provides a floor for MCB's damages recovery.
Disgorgement of Defendant's Profits. Under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), MCB may seek disgorgement of Brindoval's profits attributable to the infringing use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark. Brindoval generated $6.8 million in gross revenue from MERIDIAN FRESH products in just five months. Once MCB establishes Brindoval's gross revenues, the burden shifts to Brindoval to prove any deductions for costs and expenses. Disgorgement serves both a compensatory function (preventing unjust enrichment) and a deterrent function (Discouraging future infringement). See Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. 169 (2020).
Brand Dilution and Goodwill Erosion. MCB has invested $47.2 million over twelve years building the MERIDIAN brand into a nationally recognized name in the household cleaning category. The unauthorized use of a confusingly similar mark by a large, well-resourced retailer — one with $2.1 billion in annual revenue, 148 retail stores, and an active e-commerce platform — poses a significant risk of dilution to the MERIDIAN brand's distinctiveness and commercial value. Brand dilution is notoriously difficult to quantify in precise dollar terms, but it represents a real and substantial category of harm that courts routinely consider in fashioning equitable relief in trademark cases. The erosion of consumer associations between the MERIDIAN mark and MCB's products, and the weakening of the mark's source-identifying function, cause ongoing harm that compounds over time and may be difficult or impossible to reverse.
Enhanced Damages and Attorney Fees. In the event that MCB establishes willful infringement at trial — a finding that is supported by the circumstantial evidence of deliberate copying discussed in Section VI.F — the Lanham Act empowers the Court to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount of actual damages or defendant's profits, and to award MCB its reasonable attorney fees as the prevailing party in an "exceptional case." 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), (b). The availability of enhanced damages and fee-shifting represents a meaningful source of additional litigation exposure for Brindoval.
B. MCB's Litigation Costs to Date
MCB has already incurred significant legal fees and costs in prosecuting this action. These costs include, but are not limited to, attorney fees for the investigation, cease-and-desist correspondence, TTAB opposition filing, complaint drafting and filing, preliminary injunction briefing and hearing preparation, initial disclosures, and written discovery preparation; expert engagement fees of $87,500 payable to Lakeshore Brand Consulting LLC for the design, administration, and analysis of the Furman Survey; court filing fees and service of process costs; and internal management time and resources diverted from MCB's business operations to support the litigation.
Continued litigation through the completion of fact and expert discovery, dispositive motion practice, trial preparation, and trial itself will result in substantial additional costs to both parties. MCB estimates that the total cost of litigating this matter through a trial on the merits will be significant — a factor that counsels in favor of a negotiated resolution, provided that the terms of any settlement are fair and adequately protect MCB's rights.
VIII. MCB'S SETTLEMENT OBJECTIVES
MCB enters this mediation with clearly defined settlement objectives that it believes represent a fair, commercially reasonable, and legally supportable resolution of this dispute. MCB's proposal is designed to achieve two overarching goals: (1) fair monetary compensation for the harm already inflicted by Brindoval's infringement, and (2) a comprehensive, enforceable coexistence framework that provides robust prospective brand protection for MCB's MERIDIAN marks while permitting Brindoval to retain a modified version of its private-label brand under carefully defined conditions. MCB's settlement terms are set forth below.
A. Monetary Payment
MCB seeks a one-time lump-sum settlement payment from Brindoval to compensate MCB for the harm caused by Brindoval's infringement of the MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks and associated trade dress. MCB's position is that an appropriate payment should be reflective of multiple factors, including: Brindoval's revenues derived from sales of MERIDIAN FRESH products (at least $6.8 million to date and growing); MCB's damages, including lost profits, brand dilution, and goodwill erosion; the strength of MCB's litigation position, as confirmed by the PI Order and the Furman Survey results; and MCB's litigation costs incurred to date.
MCB is prepared to discuss the specific monetary amount it seeks with the Mediator in a confidential caucus session. MCB has developed a detailed damages analysis that it will share with the Mediator on a for-your-eyes-only basis.
B. Mark Modification
As a condition of any coexistence arrangement, Brindoval must modify its mark from "MERIDIAN FRESH" to "BRINDOVAL MERIDIAN FRESH," with the word "BRINDOVAL" appearing prominently on all product packaging, marketing materials, e-commerce listings, and other branded communications. Specifically, the word "BRINDOVAL" must appear at no less than 75% of the type size of "MERIDIAN FRESH" to ensure that the mark is perceived by consumers as a Brindoval house brand, rather than as a standalone brand that could be confused with MCB's MERIDIAN products. This mark modification is essential to mitigating the likelihood of consumer confusion by clearly associating the product with Brindoval's well-known retail brand.
As a corollary to this requirement, Brindoval must amend its pending trademark application Serial No. 97/412,558 to reflect the modified mark "BRINDOVAL MERIDIAN FRESH," or alternatively, withdraw the existing application and file a new application for the modified mark.
C. Channel Restrictions
To prevent confusion in the retail and e-commerce channels where MCB's MERIDIAN products are prominently sold, any use by Brindoval of a mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" must be strictly limited to the following distribution channels:
(a) Brindoval-branded retail store locations (currently 148 stores across twelve Midwestern and Mountain West states); and
(b) Brindoval's own e-commerce platform at www.crestviewhomegoods.com.
The use of any mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" on third-party retail platforms — including, without limitation, Penmark Holdings, Walmart.com, Adriatic Corporation, Cobalt Ridge Corporation, and any other third-party e-commerce or marketplace platform — or through wholesale or third-party distribution channels must be expressly prohibited. These restrictions are critical because MCB's MERIDIAN products are sold through many of these same third-party platforms and retail channels, and the commingling of similarly-marked products on these platforms would create an acute risk of consumer confusion. By confining Brindoval's use of the mark to its own controlled distribution channels, the parties can substantially reduce the likelihood of consumer confusion while permitting Brindoval to offer a private-label product to its own customer base.
D. Product-Category Restrictions
Brindoval's use of any mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" must be strictly limited to household cleaning products in International Class 3 — i.e., the specific product categories in which Brindoval currently sells MERIDIAN FRESH products (all-purpose spray, glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and dish soap).
Brindoval must be expressly prohibited from expanding its use of any mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" into the following product categories, in which MCB has an existing and growing presence:
(a) Personal care products (including but not limited to soaps, shampoos, body washes, lotions, and skincare products);
(b) Home fragrance products (including but not limited to candles, reed diffusers, room sprays, and essential oil blends); and
(c) Laundry detergent and laundry care products.
These product-category restrictions are necessary to protect MCB's ability to extend the MERIDIAN brand into adjacent product categories — a strategy that is central to MCB's growth plan and that MCB's private equity sponsor, Waypoint Capital Partners, has identified as a key value-creation initiative.
E. Trade Dress Modifications
Brindoval must permanently discontinue the use of the teal-and-white color scheme and wave device that formed the basis of the Court's PI Order. This requirement is substantially consistent with the relief the Court has already ordered; MCB's settlement terms would make the trade dress modification permanent rather than a preliminary measure subject to reconsideration at trial.
In addition, any replacement trade dress adopted by Brindoval for products bearing a mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" must be submitted to MCB for review at least thirty (30) days before commercial use. To be clear, MCB is not seeking an approval right over Brindoval's packaging — Brindoval would retain design autonomy — but MCB must have the right to review proposed trade dress and raise objections if the proposed design creates a likelihood of confusion with MCB's branding. Any disputes regarding trade dress would be subject to resolution through binding arbitration on an expedited basis, with the arbitrator selected from a panel agreed upon in the definitive agreement.
F. Quality Monitoring
Because the MERIDIAN brand carries significant consumer goodwill associated with product quality and performance, MCB must have the right to monitor the quality of products sold under a mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" to protect the brand's reputation and consumer expectations. Specifically, MCB seeks:
(a) The right to receive product samples of all Brindoval products bearing a mark incorporating "MERIDIAN" on an annual basis, at Brindoval's expense; and
(b) The right to conduct one (1) quality inspection per calendar year at Brindoval's manufacturing or distribution facilities (or those of its contract manufacturers) upon reasonable notice, at MCB's expense, for the purpose of evaluating product quality and consistency with applicable industry standards.
This quality-monitoring right is a standard feature of trademark coexistence and licensing agreements and is designed to protect both MCB's goodwill and the consuming public's expectation of quality when purchasing products bearing the MERIDIAN name.
G. Non-Challenge Covenant
Brindoval must covenant not to challenge the validity, enforceability, or scope of MCB's federal trademark registrations — U.S. Registration Nos. 4,218,506, 5,034,771, and 5,589,320 — in any forum, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office, any federal or state court, or any arbitration proceeding. This non-challenge covenant is a standard and appropriate term in the context of a coexistence agreement, given that Brindoval's Counterclaim in the pending litigation seeks a declaratory judgment that arguably calls into question the scope of MCB's registered rights. Any settlement must extinguish this challenge and prevent future challenges.
H. Enforcement Mechanisms
A coexistence agreement is only as strong as its enforcement mechanisms. To ensure that the channel restrictions, product-category restrictions, trade dress requirements, and other coexistence terms are meaningfully enforceable, the definitive agreement must include the following:
(a) Liquidated Damages: A fixed amount of $500,000 per occurrence for any breach of the channel restrictions or product-category restrictions, in addition to MCB's right to recover actual damages resulting from the breach. The liquidated damages amount reflects the difficulty of quantifying the harm to MCB's brand from unauthorized channel or category expansion and is intended to deter violations.
(b) Injunctive Relief: Acknowledgment that any breach of the coexistence terms would cause irreparable harm to MCB, entitling MCB to seek injunctive relief without the need to post a bond.
(c) Perpetual Term: The coexistence agreement shall have a perpetual term, reflecting the ongoing nature of MCB's trademark rights, unless terminated by mutual written consent of the parties or upon material breach by either party.
I. Dismissal and Withdrawal
Upon execution of a definitive coexistence and settlement agreement, the parties would take the following steps to resolve the pending legal proceedings:
(a) The parties would file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in the Southern District of New York action, Case No. 1:22-cv-09483, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation would provide for the Court's retention of jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
(b) MCB would withdraw its Notice of Opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91/278,415), with Brindoval's consent, following amendment of Brindoval's trademark application to reflect the modified mark "BRINDOVAL MERIDIAN FRESH."
IX. WHY SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE
A. Strength of MCB's Position
MCB approaches this mediation from a position of considerable legal strength. The foundation of MCB's case rests on marks that are strong, long-established, federally registered, and, in the case of U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506, incontestable. MCB has over a decade of continuous, exclusive use and nearly $95 million in annual branded sales supporting the commercial strength and secondary meaning of the MERIDIAN mark.
The Court's January 9, 2023 PI Order provides an important judicial imprimatur on the merits of MCB's claims. Although the Court's ruling was partial — granting trade dress relief but declining to enjoin the word mark at the preliminary stage — the Court's findings that MCB demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm are powerful indicators of the trajectory of this case. The PI Order sends an unmistakable signal that MCB's claims have substantial merit and that Brindoval faces meaningful litigation risk.
The consumer confusion evidence is compelling. Dr. Furman's survey yielded a 31.4% net confusion rate — a figure that is well above the thresholds courts in the Second Circuit have found sufficient, and one that will be difficult for Brindoval to effectively challenge at trial. The survey was designed using a well-accepted protocol, employed a robust sample size, and included appropriate control measures. Anecdotal evidence of actual confusion from MCB's customer service records provides additional support.
MCB expects to prevail at trial on its core Lanham Act claims and to obtain permanent injunctive relief, substantial monetary damages, and potentially enhanced damages if willfulness is established. Brindoval should evaluate its settlement posture in light of this litigation exposure.
B. Benefits to Both Parties
While MCB is confident in its litigation position, it also recognizes the practical benefits of a negotiated resolution. A mediated settlement offers significant advantages to both parties:
For Brindoval: A negotiated coexistence framework allows Brindoval to retain a modified version of its private-label brand — "BRINDOVAL MERIDIAN FRESH" — within carefully defined parameters. This avoids the potentially devastating outcome (from Brindoval's perspective) of a permanent injunction requiring the complete cessation of use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark, which would result in a total write-off of Brindoval's product-line investment, including the costs of product development, packaging, manufacturing, marketing, inventory, and shelf placement. A settlement allows Brindoval to preserve the value of its investment while respecting MCB's prior rights.
For MCB: A settlement provides MCB with immediate monetary relief — rather than the uncertain and distant prospect of a damages award following trial — and, critically, with long-term, enforceable brand-protection terms that may be more comprehensive and more specifically tailored than the relief a court could fashion. A coexistence agreement with detailed channel restrictions, product-category restrictions, trade dress requirements, and enforcement mechanisms gives MCB the certainty and specificity that litigation outcomes sometimes lack.
For Both Parties: The mediation framework provides an opportunity to resolve both the SDNY federal litigation and the TTAB opposition proceeding simultaneously, in a single comprehensive agreement. This eliminates the need for duplicative proceedings, reduces legal costs, and provides a clean and final resolution. A negotiated outcome also avoids the public disclosure of confidential business information — including financial data, marketing strategies, and internal communications — that continued discovery would inevitably entail.
C. Litigation Risks and Costs
MCB acknowledges, as any responsible litigant must, that trial outcomes involve inherent uncertainty. While MCB believes its case is strong, litigation is by its nature unpredictable. Credibility determinations, evidentiary rulings, and the vicissitudes of jury deliberation (if a jury trial is demanded) introduce variables that neither party can fully control.
Both parties are well-resourced and capable of funding protracted litigation. MCB is backed by Waypoint Capital Partners, a mid-market private equity firm with substantial financial resources. Brindoval, with $2.1 billion in annual revenue, is equally capable of sustaining a lengthy and expensive legal battle. The result, if settlement is not achieved, will be a costly war of attrition that diverts management attention and financial resources from both companies' core business operations. The legal fees and costs of a trademark case of this complexity — through the completion of fact discovery, expert discovery, Daubert motions, summary judgment briefing, pretrial proceedings, and trial — could easily reach seven figures for each side.
Continued litigation also carries reputational risks. Public filings, courtroom proceedings, and media coverage of the dispute have the potential to create negative publicity for both brands. A confidential, negotiated resolution avoids these risks entirely.
Finally, a settlement allows both parties to redirect their attention to their respective businesses. MCB can focus on brand growth, product innovation, and the execution of its strategic plan, while Brindoval can focus on its core retail operations and private-label development — with the assurance that its modified BRINDOVAL MERIDIAN FRESH brand can coexist with MCB's MERIDIAN marks within clearly defined boundaries.
X. CONCLUSION
MCB respectfully requests that the Mediator consider the strength of MCB's legal positi