Mike Cohn, D.V.M. v. Petsmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

Caution
2002 Daily Journal DAR 1723·281 F.3d 837·2002 WL 206384·114 A.L.R. 5th 719·58 Fed. R. Serv. 1085
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 12, 200200-35328California2,659 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dr. Mike Cohn appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claim that Petsmart infringes his trademark “Where Pets are Family.” He presents two issues: 1) whether the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction was satisfied, and 2) whether there is a likelihood of confusion in Petsmart’s use of Cohn’s mark. We hold the amount in controversy requirement was met and that there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm.

I.

In 1993, Cohn opened his Boise veterinary clinic, the Critter Clinic, and began advertising it as a place “Where Pets are Family.” In 1994, Petsmart began using the same slogan to promote its national chain of pet supplies stores, including its Boise store. Petsmart received a federal trademark registration for the phrase in 1996; Cohn received a state trademark registration for the same phrase in 1997.

Petsmart does not provide veterinary services. However, beginning in 1992, Dr. Deborah Barton provided pet vaccinations at the Boise Petsmart store on weekends, and since 1994, leased space within the Boise store for a full-service veterinary clinic. Petsmart has…

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.