JADA TOYS, INC. a California corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant., 518 F.3d 628

Summary

Both companies made toy cars. The appellate court found that because the district court considered only the dissimilarity of the marks in question, the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff had to be reversed. While a likelihood of confusion determination could ultimately rest on a subset of factors, evidence of relatively important factors had to be considered as part of that set. In the context of two subjectively dissimilar marks, evidence of actual confusion and evidence defining the context in which the goods were sold were particularly relevant. A reasonable trier of fact could find that the parties' marks were nearly identical. A reasonable juror could also find that defendant's mark was famous, that it had been in use over 37 years, and $ 350 million dollars had been expended in advertising the mark. A juror could also find that plaintiff began to use its mark after defendant's mark had become famous. With regard to the copyright infringement claim, the district court...