Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
804 F.3d 930
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- MTM holds the federally registered mark MTM Special Ops for watches; MTM does not sell MTM watches on Amazon and forbids distributors from selling MTM on Amazon.
- MTM alleges Amazon’s search results for MTM Special Ops constitute Lanham Act infringement due to likelihood of source confusion.
- Amazon’s search results page lists brands it carries (Luminox, Chase-Durer, TAWATEC, Modus) with clear labeling and photographs; MTM’s watches are not listed.
- MTM argues initial interest confusion may occur because the search term MTM Special Ops appears on the page; Amazon contends clear labeling negates confusion.
- District court granted summary judgment for Amazon; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirming, focusing on labeling and the overall context of the search results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion from Amazon search results | MTM: likely confusion from MTM term and unlisted MTM products | Amazon: clear labeling/prevents confusion | No likelihood; summary judgment for Amazon |
| Applicability of Sleekcraft factors here | MTM: Sleekcraft factors govern; confusion possible | Court should rely on labeling over factors | Sleekcraft factors are not controlling; labeling suffices to negate confusion |
| Role of actual confusion evidence | MTM: actual confusion shown by president’s remark; jury issue | No substantial actual confusion; not required for summary judgment | No genuine issue of material fact on actual confusion; not needed for ruling |
| Effect of labeling on internet keyword cases | Labeling may still mislead initial interest | Labeling clearly communicates source; prevents confusion | Clear labeling defeats likelihood of confusion; no triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion; adaptable, not rigid)
- Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) (initial interest confusion doctrine; labeling can avert confusion)
- Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (initial interest confusion; emphasize context of web/offering)
- Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) (internet keyword advertising; labeling and context matter; flexible factors)
- M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entm’t, 421 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment appropriate where confusion probablility not shown)