Blog February 14, 2018
9th Circuit Cannot Make Up Its Mind
- Person title
In a drama that certainly has not seen its curtain drop, the 9th Circuit has changed its mind twice on the same issue in the same case during a 19 month span.
This story began in 2011 when Multi Time Machine, Inc. ("MTM"), a maker of military-style watches, sued Amazon.com ("Amazon") for trademark infringement and unfair competition. MTM claimed that Amazon had "passed off" competitor's products when customers searched for MTM products. Essentially, Amazon does not carry MTM watches, but when a customer searched for that brand, Amazon would show results for watches sold by MTM's competitors. Exacerbating the situation, MTM claimed, was that Amazon did not clearly state that it did not carry the watchmaker's products—which is something that Amazon's competitors, such as Buy.com and Overstock.com, do. Instead of allowing a jury to decide this case, the 9th Circuit has spent the last two years going back-and-forth deciding whether this case should even go before a jury.
Ruling #1: In February, 2013, U.S. District Judge Pregerson held that there was no consumer confusion, and granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon.
Ruling #2: In July, 2015, the appellate panel, in a 2-1 decision, issued an opinion that summary judgment had been granted in error. Judge Bea and Judge Quist, forming a majority, found that a jury could have reasonably inferred that consumers were being confused by Amazon's search results, even if the search results were clearly labeled with the competitor's information—therefore, this case should have gone to trial.
Dissent: By contrast, Judge Silverman, in a strongly worded dissent, claimed that the majority's position was outrageous: "In light of Amazon's clear labeling of the products it carries, by brand name and model, accompanied by a photograph of the item, no rational trier of fact could possibly find that a reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to online shopping would likely be confused by the Amazon search results."
Ruling #3: It took some time for Judge Silverman's logic to win him over, but three-months later, in October, 2015, Judge Quist switched his position. In an unusual move, the three-judge panel overturned itself, finding that consumer confusion was not likely because the Amazon results page "makes clear to anyone who can read English that Amazon carries only the brands that are clearly and explicitly listed on the Web page."
Dissent: In a role-reversal, Judge Bea penned the dissent saying: "Today the panel holds that when it comes to Internet commerce, judges, not jurors, decide what labeling may confuse shoppers."
What may be the most interesting thing about this case—besides the panel overturning itself in a matter of months—is that the October, 2015 order was specifically not decided based on the traditional likelihood of confusion factors (in the 9th Circuit, these are the Sleekcraft factors). The court explained that "the Sleekcraft test was developed for a different problem—i.e., for analyzing whether two competing brands' marks are sufficiently similar to cause consumer confusion…Here, the confusion is not caused by the design of the competitor's mark, but by the design of the web page that is displaying the competing mark and offering the competing products for sale." Therefore, the panel concluded that the analysis should focus on an evaluation of the web page at issue and whether the relevant "reasonably prudent consumer" was likely to be confused.
This case has involved more drama than either party likely anticipated, but now that we are in the middle of it, we will be watching closely to see how it resolves itself. This case presents not only an interesting new legal precedent, but an ultimate ruling in favor of MTM would surely result in a rush of lawsuits against e-commerce websites which employ a similar search results strategy.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog June 5, 2017
Distillations: Two Ships Passing Not So Quietly in the Night
Blog June 1, 2017
Distillations: Respect Thy Neighbor (on the Shelf)
Article May 2, 2017
USPTO audits go mainstream: prepare for the unexpected | World Trademark Review
Blog March 30, 2017
Distillations: ALERT: Skull Crushing Victory
Blog March 23, 2017
Distillations: A Toast to Champagne
Blog July 20, 2016
Half-baked Specimens Doom HERBAL ACCESS Application at TTAB
Blog June 17, 2016
"Objective Reasonableness" is a Primary Factor, But Not the Sole Factor, When Determining a Fee Award in a Copyright Case
Article February 17, 2016
Feeling The Burn
Blog February 8, 2016
A Word of Warning for Super Bowl Fans
Blog September 22, 2023
TTAB Rules Consumer Perception Remains the Critical Inquiry for Generic.gTLD Marks
Blog August 30, 2023
Legal Alert: USPTO Warns Trademark Applicants to Beware of Spoofed Calls
Blog March 28, 2023
U.S. Copyright Office Cancels Registration for AI-Generated Art, Issues AI-Related Registration Guidance
Article March 16, 2023
Attorneys Kristen McCallion and Darra Loganzo Co-Author World Trademark Review Article "Could AI Require Platforms to Do More to Prevent Infringement?"
Blog February 10, 2023
Need-to-Knows of the New Copyright Claims Board for Small-Value Copyright Claims
Blog December 12, 2022
Legal Alert: USPTO Updates Deadline to Respond to Trademark Office Actions
Blog September 15, 2022
Legal Alert: What to Know About the USPTO's Duty of Candor Guidance Regarding FDA Submissions
Q&A August 22, 2022
Principal Vivian Cheng Featured in Law.com Q&A Series "How I Made Partner"
Article June 16, 2022
Principal Cynthia Walden and Associate Sarah Kelleher Author World Intellectual Property Review Article "Selling the Intangible in Fashion: What Does It...
Blog March 8, 2022