Kinbook v. Microsoft Corp, No. 12-1488 (3d Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 12-1488 _____________ KINBOOK, LLC, Appellant v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION _____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-10-cv-04828) District Judge: Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter _____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 7, 2013 Before: RENDELL, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: January 10, 2013) _____________ OPINION OF THE COURT _____________ RENDELL, Circuit Judge. This is a reverse trademark infringement case in which Kinbook, LLC ( Kinbook ) alleges that Microsoft Corporation s ( Microsoft ) trademarks Kinect (particularly when used in conjunction with its XBox 360 mark) and KIN are confusingly similar to Kinbook s registered Kinbox and Munchkinbox trademarks. After considering the non-exhaustive list of factors enumerated in Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983), as applied in reverse confusion cases, see Freedom Card, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463, 472 (3d Cir. 2005), the District Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between the parties marks exists and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Microsoft. Kinbook timely appealed. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, including the detailed thirty-page memorandum of the District Court. We see no need to expand upon the District Court s thorough analysis and surely cannot improve upon its sound reasoning. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth by the District Court, we will affirm its judgment in favor of Microsoft. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.