Pom Wonderful v. Robert Hubbard, Jr.

Good Law
775 F.3d 1118·2014 WL 7384391·113 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1369·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24598
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 30, 201414-55253California5,908 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ebel, J.

This appeal arises from the district court’s order denying Plaintiff-Appellant Pom Wonderful’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Pom Wonderful—the owner of the “POM” standard character mark— brought a trademark infringement claim against Defendant-Appellee Robert G. Hubbard, Jr., d/b/a Portland Bottling Company and Pur Beverages (“Pur”) to stop Pur from using the word “pom” on its pomegranate-flavored energy drink. The district court denied Pom Wonderful’s motion, finding that Pom Wonderful is unlikely to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion and therefore is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim.

Exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), we hold that the district court, abused its discretion in finding that Pom Wonderful is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim and, accordingly, we reverse. Because the district court’s decision to deny Pom Wonderful’s motion for a preliminary injunction was tainted by its mistaken likelihood-of-success determination, we remand with instructions that the district court consider whether, in light of our decision today, Pom Wonderful meets its burden of proving the other…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.

Pom Wonderful v. Robert Hubbard, Jr. · Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · 2014 | Caselegis