AYSE SEN V. AMZN, No. 20-55857 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AYSE SEN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55857 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01486-JAH-JLB MEMORANDUM* AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ayse Sen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging Lanham Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sen’s Lanham Act claims because Sen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s conduct was likely to confuse consumers about the source of Sen’s or her competitors’ products. See Multi Time Mach., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that for keyword advertising Lanham Act infringement claims, including where a plaintiff alleges “initial interest confusion,” “the likelihood of confusion will ultimately turn on what the consumer saw on the screen and reasonably believed” and summary judgment “is appropriate if there is clear labeling that avoids likely confusion”). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sen’s tortious interference claim because Sen failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendant’s “conduct was wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself.” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937, 950, 953-54 (Cal. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (elements of an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim under California law). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as meritless Sen’s contentions that the district court treated her 2 20-55857 unfairly as a pro se litigant and violated her Sixth Amendment rights. Sen’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 3 20-55857

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.