Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
866 F. Supp. 2d 453
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Kinbook, LLC sues Microsoft for unfair competition and reverse trademark infringement under the Lanham Act over Kinbox/Munchkinbox vs. Kinect/KIN.
- Kinbook registered Kinbox and Munchkinbox for Facebook use; Kinbox had limited user base.
- Microsoft released Kinect for XBOX 360 (Nov. 2010) and KIN phones (2010) with branding using kin-related terms.
- Kinbook alleges Microsoft’s kin-related marks cause confusion and push Kinbox from the market; Kinbox revenues minimal.
- Court grants Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment, finding no likelihood of confusion and not reaching Kinbook’s mark protectability.
- The court analyzes the Lapp factors and determines none support likelihood of confusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion between Kinbox/Munchkinbox and Kinect/KIN | Kinbook alleges confusing similarity. | Microsoft contends no likelihood of confusion. | No likelihood of confusion; MS SJ granted. |
| Strength/protectability of Kinbox/Munchkinbox marks | Marks are strong and distinctive. | Marks descriptive/weak. | Court did not reach validity; nonetheless no confusion. |
| Reverse confusion considerations | Microsoft’s use of kin-related marks harms Kinbook’s market. | No predatory intent shown. | No weightable factor favoring confusion; reverse confusion not shown. |
| Marketing channels and consumer targets (Lapp factor 7–8) | Overlap via Facebook as a channel. | Channels and target audiences are distinct. | No meaningful overlap; factor weighs against confusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983) (non-exhaustive Lapp factors for likelihood of confusion)
- A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000) (factor framework for likelihood of confusion; strength of mark)
- Check Point Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs. Inc., 269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001) (importance of comparing appearance/sound/meaning of marks)
- Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3d Cir. 1994) (contrast between likelihood of confusion principles in reverse/direct cases)
- Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2005) (reverse confusion and intent considerations in Lapp analysis)
- Sabinsa Corp. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 609 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (conceptual vs. commercial strength in mark analysis)