Pom Wonderful v. Robert Hubbard, Jr., 775 F.3d 1118

Background

Pom Wonderful owns a federally registered standard-character mark "POM" for pomegranate juices and has used it since 2002; it has substantial nationwide sales and marketing for pomegranate beverages.
Pur (Portland Bottling Company / Pur Beverages) marketed a pomegranate-flavored energy drink labeled "pōm." Pom notified Pur and sued when Pur refused to change packaging.
Pom moved for a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act to stop Pur's use of "pōm." The district court denied the motion, finding Pom unlikely to show a likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion (with clear-error review of Sleekcraft-factor findings) and focused on whether the district court clearly erred in its likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
The Ninth Circuit concluded the district court clearly erred on multiple Sleekcraft factors, reversing and remanding for reconsideration of the remaining Winter factors (irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pom is likely to succeed on the merits (likelihood of consumer confusion)	Pom: "POM" is a strong, federally registered standard-character mark; "pōm" is visually, aurally, and semantically similar and sold in overlapping channels to low-care consumers, so confusion is likely.	Pur: Differences in packaging, presentation, and lack of evidence of actual confusion show no likelihood of confusion.	Court: Reversed. District court clearly erred; five Sleekcraft factors favor Pom, three are neutral—Pom likely to show consumer confusion.
Scope of protection for a standard-character registration	Pom: Standard-character registration covers all renditions of the word, so protection extends to Pur's stylized use.	Pur: (Implicit) Stylization and packaging differences limit confusion and scope.	Court: Standard-character registration gives broad protection covering various depictions; supports Pom.
Proper application and review of Sleekcraft factors at preliminary-injunction stage	Pom: District court misweighed several Sleekcraft factors and unduly required evidence of same-store sales or actual confusion.	Pur: District court applied Sleekcraft and found lack of confusion and thus denied injunction.	Court: Ninth Circuit applies clear-error review to Sleekcraft findings; district court clearly erred on similarity and channel-convergence, and improperly weighed neutral factors against Pom.
Whether remand required for Winter factors after reversing likelihood-of-success finding	Pom: If likelihood of success established, district court must reassess irreparable harm, equities, and public interest.	Pur: Reliance on district court's holistic denial.	Court: Remanded for district court to reevaluate remaining Winter elements in light of corrected likelihood-of-success finding and Herb Reed guidance.

Key Cases Cited

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for abuse of discretion review of preliminary injunctions)
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985) (likelihood-of-confusion findings reviewed for clear error)
AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (articulating the eight-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-part test for preliminary injunctions)
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing mark strength and confusion analysis)
Perfumebay.com, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering marketplace presentation when comparing marks)
Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must show evidence-grounded likelihood of irreparable harm for preliminary injunction in trademark cases)
Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (clear-error review applied to Sleekcraft-factor findings)