Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Good Law
804 F.3d 930·2015 WL 6161600·116 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1583·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18265
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 6, 2015No. 13-55575California7,760 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Silverman, J.

Order; Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN; Dissent by Judge BEA

ORDER

Judges Silverman and Quist have voted to grant panel rehearing. Judge Bea has voted to deny rehearing. The petition for rehearing en banc is now moot. The Opinion filed July 6, 2015, and appearing at 792 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.2015), is withdrawn. The Superseding Opinion and Dissent are filed contemporaneously with this order. The parties may file additional petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc.

OPINION

In the present appeal, we must decide whether the following scenario constitutes trademark infringement: A customer goes online to Amazon.com looking for a certain military-style wristwatch — specifically the “MTM Special Ops” — marketed and manufactured by Plaintiff Multi Time Machine, Inc. The customer types “mtm special ops” in the search box and presses “enter.” Because Amazon does not sell the MTM Special Ops watch, what the search produces is a list, with photographs, of several other brands of military style watches that Amazon does carry, specifically identified by their brand names — Lummox, Chase-Durer, TAWATEC, and Modus.

MTM brought suit alleging that Amazon’s response to a search for the MTM…

Dissenting Opinion

Bea, J.

dissenting:

Today the panel holds that when it comes to internet commerce, judges, not jurors, decide what labeling may confuse shoppers. In so doing, the court departs from our own trademark precedent and from our summary judgment jurisprudence. Because I believe that an Amazon shopper seeking an MTM watch might well initially think that the watches Amazon offers for sale when he searches “MTM Special Ops” are affiliated with MTM, I must dissent.

*941 If her brother mentioned MTM Special Ops watches, a frequent internet shopper might try to purchase one for him through her usual internet retail sites, perhaps Overstock.com, Buy.com, and Amazon.com. 1 At Overstock’s site, if she typed “MTM special ops,” the site would respond “Sorry, your search: ‘mtm special ops’ returned no results.” Similarly, at Buy.com, she would be informed “0 results found. Sorry. Your search for mtm special ops did not return an exact match. Please try your search again.”

Things are a little different over at “Earth’s most customer-centric company,” as Amazon styles itself. There, if she were to enter “MTM Special Ops” as her search request on the Amazon website, Amazon would respond with its page…

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.