Morrison Entertainment Group Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

MEMORANDUM **

Morrison Entertainment Group (“Morrison”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants (“Nintendo”). 1 Nintendo appeals from the district court’s decision that it lacked standing to seek cancellation of the Monster in My Pocket mark. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

I.

Morrison contends that the Pokemon trademark is likely to cause “reverse confusion” with its mark, Monster in My Pocket. In other words, a consumer who sees a Monster in My Pocket product might think that the product was made by the same people who make Pokémon.

In reverse confusion cases, like forward confusion cases, in order to prevail on a trademark infringement action, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of confusion. To prevent summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find such a likelihood. See, e.g., Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 184 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (9th Cir.1999). The *784 test for demonstrating likelihood of confusion traditionally turns on “whether a ‘reasonably prudent consumer’ in the…