Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

Third Circuit

Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

490 F. App'x 491

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 2013

Docket12-1488

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 490 F. App'x 491 (Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 490 F. App'x 491 (3d Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

This is a reverse trademark infringement case in which Kinbook, LLC (“Kin-book”) alleges that Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) trademarks “Kinect” (particularly when used in conjunction with its “XBox 360” mark) and “KIN” are confusingly similar to Kinbook’s registered “Kin-box” and “Munchkinbox” trademarks. After considering the non-exhaustive list of factors enumerated in Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.1983), as applied in reverse confusion cases, see Freedom Card, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463, 472 (3d Cir.2005), the District Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks exists and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Microsoft. Kinbook timely appealed. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, including the detailed thirty-page memorandum of the District Court. We see no need to expand upon the District Court’s thorough analysis and surely cannot improve upon its sound reasoning. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth by the District Court, we will affirm its judgment in favor of Microsoft.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

This is a reverse trademark infringement case in which Kinbook, LLC (“Kin-book”) alleges that Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) trademarks “Kinect” (particularly when used in conjunction with its “XBox 360” mark) and “KIN” are confusingly similar to Kinbook’s registered “Kin-box” and “Munchkinbox” trademarks. After considering the non-exhaustive list of factors enumerated in Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.1983), as applied in reverse confusion cases, see Freedom Card, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463, 472 (3d Cir.2005), the District Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks exists and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Microsoft. Kinbook timely appealed. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, including the detailed thirty-page memorandum of the District Court. We see no need to expand upon the District Court’s thorough analysis and surely cannot improve upon its sound reasoning. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth by the District Court, we will affirm its judgment in favor of Microsoft.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 F. App'x 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinbook-llc-v-microsoft-corp-ca3-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack