Quicksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta, Corporation

Good Law
466 F.3d 749·2006 WL 2846381·80 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1810·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 25029
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 6, 200604-55529California5,994 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rawlinson, J.

Kymsta appeals from the district court’s decision granting Quiksilver’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and denying Kymsta’s competing cross-motion. The court concluded that Quiksilver’s trademarks, “QUIKSILVER ROXY” and “ROXY,” are valid; that Kymsta was unable to rebut the presumption of validity; and that Kymsta could not benefit from the innocent-use defense.

We affirm the district court’s granting of Quiksilver’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Kymsta’s fraud defense. We also affirm the denial of Kymsta’s cross-motion as to innocent use. However, reasonable minds could differ on the import of the evidence regarding first use of the contested mark, tacking related marks for first-use analysis, the inherent distinctiveness of the contested mark, and Kymsta’s innocent-use defense. Therefore, we reverse the judgment as a matter of law in favor of Quiksilver as to those issues.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Quiksilver

Quiksilver is a global company that manufactures sports-wear for young men and women. In 1989, Quiksilver decided to launch a juniors’ clothing line for teenage girls. As the name for its juniors’ line, Quiksilver chose…

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.