The district court erred in applying the preliminary injunction standard when determining cross-motions for summary judgment in this trademark infringement case. In connection with its preliminary injunction motion, plaintiff bore the burden of proof; whereas, on summary judgment, its evidence must be credited and the only question is whether it is sufficient to raise a question of fact for trial. Here, plaintiff’s evidence did so. Both parties sold vodka in bottles with logos featuring pursed lips whose color matched the flavoring in the vodka. There was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the labels (and hence origin of the product) would be confused by reasonable consumers. So the case must go to trial for resolution by a jury.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Wallace, J.); July 14, 2016; 2016 WL 3770484