BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC V. ADAM ROCCO, No. 20-56272 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, a German corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-56272 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09285-DSF-PLA MEMORANDUM* v. ADAM R. ROCCO, an Individual, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Adam R. Rocco appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in this action alleging trademark infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for * 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). summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiffs because Rocco failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the replica BMW and M products that Rocco sold were not counterfeit items and were not identical to authentic BMW and M products. See Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc., 875 F.3d 426, 432 (9th Cir. 2017) (identical marks used with identical products or services can be case-dispositive of likelihood of confusion); AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th Cir. 1979) (setting forth eight non-exhaustive factors to determine likelihood of confusion), abrogated in part on other grounds by Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 810 n.19 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 20-56272

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.