2 G

EORGIA

ACIFIC V

REHLE

Vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part by publishedopinion. Senior Judge Hamilton wrote the opinion, in which JudgeKeenan and Judge Wilson joined. Judge Wilson wrote a separateopinion concurring specially.________________________________________________________

COUNSELARGUED:

Stephen Patrick Demm, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP,Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Albert P. Allan,ALLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, forAppellee/Cross-Appellant.

ON BRIEF:

Thomas G. Slater, Jr., JohnGary Maynard, III, George P. Sibley, III, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Mark G. Arnold, HUSCH BLACKWELLSANDERS LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.Stephen L. Curry, North Little Rock, Arkansas; Michael P. Thomas,PATRICK HARPER & DIXON, LLP, Hickory, North Carolina, forAppellee/Cross-Appellant.________________________________________________________

OPINION

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP (G-P),successor-in-interest to Georgia Pacific Corporation, is a leadingdesigner/manufacturer of, inter alia, paper products and dispensers forsuch products for the home and the away-from-home setting (e.g.,hotels, stadiums, restaurants, etc). This case implicates two relatedproducts first introduced by G-P in October 2002--the® touchless paper towel dispenser (®Dispenser) and paper toweling with a high-quality, fabric-like feeldesigned specifically for use in and problem-free operation of ® Dispensers (® Toweling). AlthoughG-P actually sells ® Toweling to janitorial supplydistributors, who, in turn sell it to their respective end-user customers(e.g., hotels, stadiums, restaurants, etc.), G-P only leases

EORGIA

ACIFIC V

REHLE

3® Dispensers to such distributors, who, in turn, arepermitted to sublease them to their respective end-user customers.The leases and subleases expressly provide that only ®Toweling can be used in ® Dispensers and stickers onthe inside of ® Dispensers reinforce the limitation.The face of every ® Dispenser bears fourregistered trademarks owned by G-P--®,®, ®, and ® or ®.

Collectively, we refer to the first three of these trademarks as “the G

P Marks,” which are the three trademarks at issue on appeal.

On July 8, 2005, after one of G-

P‟s competitors,

von DrehleCorporation (VD), started marketing and selling to distributors aninferior paper toweling specifically manufactured by VD for use in® Dispensers, G-P brought the present civil actionagainst VD, alleging the following four causes of action at issue onappeal: (1) unfair competition in violation of § 43(a) of the LanhamAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) contributory trademark infringement inviolation of § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (3) unfaircompetition in violation of North Carolina common law; and (4)tortious interference with contractual relationships in violation of North Carolina common law.

VD counterclaimed for violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NCUDTPA), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75.1.1. Ultimately, on cross-motions forsummary judgment with respect to all of G-

P‟s claims, the district

court granted summary judgment in favor of VD. The district courtalso granted summary judgment in favor of G-

P with respect to VD‟s

counterclaim.

G-P also initially named Carolina Janitorial & MaintenanceSupply, Inc. as a defendant. Carolina Janitorial & MaintenanceSupply, Inc. has since been dismissed from the case and is not aparty on appeal.