Unitek Solvent Services, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC

MEMORANDUM

Unitek Solvent Services appeals the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in Unitek’s trademark infringement case against Chrysler Group. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in ruling that “ECODIESEL” was a descriptive mark, rather than a suggestive mark. See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.2009). The district court did not violate the anti-dissection rule when it examined the two components of the ECODIESEL mark and then analyzed the composite term as a whole. See, e.g., id. at 1200-01; Surgicenters of Am., Inc. v. Med. Dental Surgeries, Co., 601 F.2d 1011, 1015-18 (9th Cir.1979). Nor did the district court clearly err in holding that no “mental leap is required in order to reach a conclusion” that the ECODIESEL mark refers to environmentally friendly diesel fuel. Rudolph Int’l, Inc. v. Realys, Inc., 482 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Surgicenters, 601 F.2d at 1015 .

Volkswagen’s registration of “ECO-DIESEL” in 1992 (a mark it apparently abandoned in 1999), provides little evidence of the distinctiveness of Unitek’s mark,…