Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com, No. 13-55575 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseMTM filed suit against online retailer Amazon under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., alleging that Amazon had infringed MTM's trademark. MTM argues that initial interest confusion might occur because Amazon lists the search term used – here the trademarked phrase “mtm special ops” – three times at the top of its search page. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon. The court considered five non-exhaustive Sleekcraft factors to determine whether a trademark gives rise to a likelihood of confusion: the strength of the mark, relatedness/proximity of the goods, evidence of actual confusion, defendant’s intent, and the degree of care exercised by purchasers. The court concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion under the initial interest confusion theory. Finally, the court held that the customer-generated use of a trademark in the retail search context is a use in commerce. In this case, Amazon's purpose is not less commercial just because it is selling wares, not advertising space. Therefore, the court declined to affirm the district court on the alternative ground that Amazon’s use is not a use in commerce. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Trademark. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act against online retailer Amazon.com. Multi Time Machine, Inc., manufacturer of MTM Special Ops watches, alleged that Amazon’s website infringed its trademark because of the manner in which the website responded to a shopper’s search request for the watches. The panel held that a jury could find that Amazon had created a likelihood of confusion under an “initial interest confusion” theory by responding to a search request with a page showing “MTM Special Ops” three times above a search result displaying similar watches manufactured by MTM’s competitors. Dissenting, Judge Silverman wrote that because Amazon’s search result clearly labeled the name and manufacturer of each product offered for sale and even included photographs of the items, no reasonably prudent shopper accustomed to shopping online would likely be confused as to the source of the products. MULTI TIME MACHINE V. AMAZON.COM 3
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.