Bmw of North America, LLC v. Mini Works, LLC

Ninth Circuit

Bmw of North America, LLC v. Mini Works, LLC

463 F. App'x 689

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2011

Docket10-17457

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 463 F. App'x 689 (Bmw of North America, LLC v. Mini Works, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bmw of North America, LLC v. Mini Works, LLC, 463 F. App'x 689 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendants Mini Works, LLC and Victor Barreira appeal from the District *690 Court’s judgment, entered after a bench trial, in favor of Plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (collectively “BMW”) as to BMW’s claims against Appellants for federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition as well as its claim against Barreira under the Anti-Cybers-quatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). We review for clear error. See, e.g., Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir.2002); Murray v. Cable Nat’l Broad. Co., 86 F.3d 858, 860 (9th Cir.1996).

The District Court committed no such clear error in its thorough and well-reasoned ruling setting forth its own findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented at the bench trial. With respect to the infringement and unfair competition claims, the District Court properly applied the relevant Sleekcraft factors to determine that a likelihood of confusion exists as to the Appellants’ use of the MINI WORKS trademark and trade name and BMW’s MINI marks. See, e.g., AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). Likewise, the District Court appropriately found that the nominative fair use doctrine did not apply here because Appellants used more of BMW’s mark than necessary and falsely suggested that they were sponsored or endorsed by BMW itself. See, e.g., New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir.1992). Finally, we conclude that the District Court did not clearly err by finding Barreira liable under the ACPA. because he acted in bad faith and did not meet the statutory safe harbor. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *690 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendants Mini Works, LLC and Victor Barreira appeal from the District *690 Court’s judgment, entered after a bench trial, in favor of Plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (collectively “BMW”) as to BMW’s claims against Appellants for federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition as well as its claim against Barreira under the Anti-Cybers-quatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). We review for clear error. See, e.g., Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir.2002); Murray v. Cable Nat’l Broad. Co., 86 F.3d 858, 860 (9th Cir.1996).

The District Court committed no such clear error in its thorough and well-reasoned ruling setting forth its own findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented at the bench trial. With respect to the infringement and unfair competition claims, the District Court properly applied the relevant Sleekcraft factors to determine that a likelihood of confusion exists as to the Appellants’ use of the MINI WORKS trademark and trade name and BMW’s MINI marks. See, e.g., AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). Likewise, the District Court appropriately found that the nominative fair use doctrine did not apply here because Appellants used more of BMW’s mark than necessary and falsely suggested that they were sponsored or endorsed by BMW itself. See, e.g., New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir.1992). Finally, we conclude that the District Court did not clearly err by finding Barreira liable under the ACPA. because he acted in bad faith and did not meet the statutory safe harbor. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *690 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bmw-of-north-america-llc-v-mini-works-llc-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack