Adidas America, Inc. v. Michael Calmese

MEMORANDUM

Michael Cálmese appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment declaring that Adidas did not infringe upon Calmese’s trademark and the district court’s award of monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees to Adidas. Adidas cross appeals the district court’s judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of Cálmese on Adidas’s claim for cancellation of Calmese’s mark. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entm’t, 421 F.3d 1073 , 1080 (9th Cir.2005). We review for clear error the district court’s account of the evidence. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). We affirm.

In No. 11-35053, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Adidas on its claim of non-infringement because Cálmese failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to likelihood of confusion. See M2 Software, 421 F.3d at 1085 (at summary judgment, the court must decide whether there is a triable dispute as to likelihood of confusion); Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (likelihood of confusion is mitigated…