Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com., Inc.
804 F.3d 930 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An online retailer does not commit trademark infringement by responding to a search for a specific trademarked product with a results page showing clearly labeled and pictured competing products, because a reasonably prudent online consumer is not likely to be confused about the source of the goods.
Facts:
- Multi Time Machine, Inc. (MTM) manufactures and markets high-end military-style watches under the federally registered trademark 'MTM Special Ops.'
- To maintain an image of exclusivity, MTM does not sell its watches through Amazon.com and does not authorize its distributors to do so.
- Consequently, MTM watches have never been available for sale on Amazon.com.
- When a consumer on Amazon.com types 'mtm special ops' into the search bar, the website generates a results page.
- This search results page does not display any MTM products because Amazon does not carry them.
- Instead, the page displays a list of competing military-style watches from other brands, such as Luminox and Chase-Durer.
- Each product listing on the results page clearly identifies the product's name, its manufacturer, and includes a photograph of the item.
- The top of the results page displays the user's original search query, 'mtm special ops,' in the search box and in a 'breadcrumb' trail.
Procedural Posture:
- Multi Time Machine, Inc. (MTM) sued Amazon.com, Inc. in U.S. District Court, alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
- Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon.
- MTM, as appellant, appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an online retailer's search results page, which responds to a search for a trademarked product it does not sell by displaying clearly labeled competing products, create a likelihood of consumer confusion that constitutes trademark infringement under the Lanham Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Silverman
No. An online retailer's search results page that displays clearly labeled competing products in response to a search for a trademarked item does not create a likelihood of consumer confusion amounting to trademark infringement. The core test for trademark infringement is whether a 'reasonably prudent consumer' is likely to be confused about the product's origin. In the context of expensive goods like MTM watches, the consumer is expected to exercise a high degree of care and is accustomed to online shopping. Because Amazon’s search results page clearly labels each product by its brand name and model number, and includes a photograph, it is unreasonable to conclude that such a consumer would be confused. Clear labeling can eliminate the possibility of 'initial interest confusion,' and in this case, the unambiguous presentation of competing products makes confusion highly unlikely, obviating the need for a full analysis of the eight-factor Sleekcraft test.
Dissenting - Bea
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Amazon's search results page creates a likelihood of initial interest confusion, and this question should be decided by a jury, not by judges on summary judgment. Unlike other online retailers that inform customers when a product is not available, Amazon displays the 'MTM Special Ops' trademark multiple times on the results page before listing competing products. This could cause a reasonably prudent shopper to initially believe that the displayed products are affiliated with MTM, for example, that Luminox had acquired MTM or was manufactured by the same parent company. This 'initial interest confusion' is an actionable form of trademark infringement, as it improperly allows Amazon to capitalize on MTM's goodwill to divert customers to its competitors. The majority improperly usurps the jury's role by making a factual determination that the labeling is sufficiently 'clear' to prevent confusion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that clear and unambiguous labeling is a potent defense against trademark infringement claims in e-commerce, particularly in cases involving online search results. The court grants online retailers significant latitude in presenting competing products, so long as the source of those products is clearly identified. The ruling heightens the burden on trademark holders to prove likely confusion among sophisticated online shoppers, potentially narrowing the application of the 'initial interest confusion' doctrine where products are clearly distinguished. This precedent makes it more difficult for brands to control how their trademarks are used in internal search engines of third-party retailers.
Unlock the full brief for Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com., Inc.