United States Ninth Circuit

In order for an owner of a federally registered trademark to mount an infringement action against a user of the trademarked name on goods or services that are not the same as those specified in the owner's trademark registration, the plaintiff must establish a valid, protectable interest in order to proceed to the second prong of the trademark infringement analysis, the likelihood of confusion resulting from the defendant's alleged infringing use. Once a protectable interest is established by proving plaintiff is the owner of a registered trademark, the owner does not additionally have to show that the defendant's allegedly confusing use involves the same goods or services listed in the registration.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/17/2007
• Decided 12/28/2007
• Published 12/28/2007

Judges

• FISHER, Circuit Judge:, Before:  RAYMOND C. FISHER and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and JEREMY D. FOGEL, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Joanna M. Esty, Angela C. Agrusa (argued), Wendy E. Lane, Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for appellant/cross-appellee., Michael T. Zeller (argued), Daniel H. Bromberg, Patrick C. McGannon, Elizabeth B. Wydra, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee/cross-appellant.