In Church & Dwight Co. Inc. v. Mayer Laboratories Inc., Northern District of California Judge Edward M. Chen granted Mayer Laboratories Inc.’s motion for reconsideration, reviving Mayer’s claim that Trojan condom maker Church & Dwight Co. Inc. had infringed its trademark for the term “microthin.” This case originally began in 2008, when C&D filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that its rebating practices, which offer retailers a discount on wholesale prices if they agree to shelve the condoms in more visible areas, were fair under state and federal competition laws. Mayer responded with a dozen counterclaims, including allegations that the program violated the Sherman Act, the Lanham Act, and infringed on trademarks. In March, the court dismissed 11 of Mayer’s 12 counterclaims, including that the rebate offers were anti-competitive and that C&D had wrongly used the term “microthin.” Following the dismissal, Mayer filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the trademark infringement claim. In granting Mayer’s motion for reconsideration, the court held that it failed to properly consider that the U.S. Patent and Trademark office specifically ruled that “microthin” had developed a secondary, distinctive meaning. As such, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the likelihood of confusion from C&D’s use of the microthin mark.