Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc

804 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P manufactures and markets watches under MTM, MTM Special Ops, and MTM Military Ops. MTM holds the federally registered trademark 'MTM Special Ops' for timepieces. P does not sell its watches through D. P does not authorize its distributors, whose agreements require them to seek MTM's permission to sell MTM's products anywhere but their own retail sites, to sell MTM watches on D. P's watches have never been available for sale on D. Consumers who shop for products on D's website can utilize its search function. P's search function does not simply match the words in the user's query to words in a document, such as a product description in D's catalog. D employs a variety of techniques, including some that rely on user behavior, to produce relevant results. By going beyond exactly matching a user's query to text describing a product, D's search function can provide consumers with relevant results that would otherwise be overlooked. Consumers who search for the term 'mtm special ops' are directed to a search results page. 'Mtm special ops' - is displayed twice: in the search query box and directly below the search query box in what is termed a 'breadcrumb.' The breadcrumb displays the original query, 'mtm special ops,' in quotation marks, and below the breadcrumb, is a 'Related Searches' field, which provides the consumer with alternative search queries in case the consumer is dissatisfied with the results of the original search. In the related search field D shows 10 results for other watches. P filed a complaint alleging that D's search results page infringes P's trademarks. D filed a motion for summary judgment because it is not using P's mark in commerce and there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. The court ignored use in commerce and utilized the eight-factor test set forth in AMF. The court granted summary judgment for D and P appealed.