Java Jazz, Inc. v. Jazzland, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The relevant facts are well known to the parties and need not be repeated here. The district court conducted a jury trial on Java Jazz’s claim that Jazzland had infringed two of Java Jazz’s federally registered trademarks. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Jazzland. Java Jazz asserts on appeal that the jury’s verdict is irrational and likely was the result of confusion caused by the district court’s decision to admit evidence of a prior Louisiana trademark registration and failure to give appropriate jury instructions.
Ordinarily, a jury’s verdict must be upheld if it is supported by “substantial evidence,” which is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion even if it is possible to draw a contrary conclusion from the same evidence. See Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir.2002). Although it is not clear from the briefs, Java Jazz also appears to appeal the district court’s denial of its Rule 50(b) motion. 3 The parties agree that the proper statement of applicable law with respect to trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion test set forth in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir.1979).