No. 16- In the Supreme Court of the United States LEE JASON KIBLER, d/b/a DJ LOGIC, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT BRYSON HALL, II; VISIONARY MUSIC GROUP, INC.; WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; THREE OH ONE PRODUCTIONS, LLC; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., d/b/a DEF JAM RECORDINGS, RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AL J. DANIEL, JR. Counsel of Record Daniel Law PLLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 (212) 721-0902 May 12, 2017 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED There is a long-standing circuit conflict as to whether balancing likelihood of confusion factors in a trademark infringement case is a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the trier of fact. Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy, Inc., 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 916 (1982) (White, J., dissenting, citing conflicting decisions). Only the courts of appeals for the Second, Sixth, and Federal Circuits balance the factors as an issue of law rather than an issue of fact for the trier of fact. Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. ___ (No. 13-1211, Jan. 21, 2015) holds that a claim of “tacking” in a trademark infringement case is a question of fact for the trier of fact, not a question of law for the court, resolving a similar circuit conflict. Deciding likelihood of confusion is the same kind of fact-intensive inquiry as tacking. The questions presented here are: 1. Whether the courts below erred by balancing the trademark likelihood of confusion factors as an issue of law rather than a question of fact, contrary to this Court’s analysis in Hana Financial and the majority of circuits. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred by affirming summary judgment against petitioner where it applied the wrong standard of review for balancing the trademark likelihood of confusion factors. ii RULES 14.1 AND 29.6 STATEMENTS All parties are identified in the caption of this petition. Petitioner was the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and was the appellant in the court of appeals. Petitioner is a natural person. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented i Rules 14.1(b) and 29.6 Statement ii Opinions and orders below 1 Jurisdiction 1 Statutes Involved 1 Statement 1 A. Relevant Trademark Law 7 B. Facts Relevant to Petitioner’s Trademark Claims 11 C. The District Court Dismissed Petitioner’s Claims on Summary Judgment, Balancing the Likelihood Of Confusion Factors As a Matter of Law 16 D. The Sixth Circuit Affirmed Summary Judgment Dismissal, Balancing Confusion Factors As a Matter of Law Under Its Precedent 19 iv Reasons for Granting the Petition 26 I. Balancing the Likelihood of Confusion Factors in a Trademark Infringement Case Is a Question of Fact For the Trier of Facts 28 II. The Minority Rule Prevents Proper Application of the Test for Summary Judgment on Likelihood of Confusion Issues 30 III. The Issues Are Important and the Circuit Conflict Is Long-Standing 32 Conclusion 33 Appendix A – Opinion and judgment of court of appeals (December 13, 2016) 1a Appendix B – Order of district court (November 9, 2015) 31a Appendix C – Judgment of district court (November 9, 2015) 44a Appendix D – Declaration of Petitioner (filed June 17, 2015) 46a Appendix E – Declaration of Jon Prine (dated Feb. 27, 2014) 56a Appendix F – Petitioner’s Verified Complaint (filed January 3, 2014) 60a v Appendix G – Petitioner’s Reg. No. 2,374,737 for DJ LOGIC (Aug. 8, 2000) 83a Appendix H – Petitioner’s Reg. No. 4,371,378 for DJ LOGIC (July 23, 2013) 84a Appendix I – Resp. Three Oh One Prods. LLC Appl. for Regist. of LOGIC, Ser. No. 85755964 (signed Oct. 15, 2012) 86a Appendix J – Relevant Provisions of the Trademark Act 91a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES: Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .. 5, 10, 19, 30 B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., ___ U.S. ___ (No. 13-352, Mar. 24, 2015). 7, 9 Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2008). 2 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.3d 1033 (2d Cir. 1992). 3 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). 10 Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999). 3 Door-Oliver, Incorporated v. Fluid-Quip, Incorporated, 94 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 1996). 2 Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Meliá, Inc., 728 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2013). 8 Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008). 2 Frehling Enterprises, Inc. v. International Select Group, Inc., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999). 2 Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy, Inc., 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 916 (1982).. 4, 5, 20, 27 vii Table of Authorities continued Page(s) Frisch’s Rest., Inc. v. Shoney’s Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1264 (6th Cir. 1985).. 6, 20 Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. ___ (No. 13-1211, Jan. 21, 2015). passim Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___, No. 14-7505 (Jan. 12, 2016). 27 Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982). 10 John Allan Company v. Craig Allen Company L.L.C., 540 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2008).. 2 Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC, 794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015).. 3 KP Permanent Make-up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004). 8 Kitchen v. v. Chippewa Valley Schools, 825 F.2d 1004, 1012-1013 (6th Cir. 1987). 17 L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Company, 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 908 (1993). 3 Lee Jason Kibler v. Three Oh One Productions LLC, Opp. No. 91217634 (TTAB). 16 Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 2 viii Table of Authorities continued Page(s) Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). 5, 10, 19 Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., 915 F.2d 201, 206-208 (6th Cir. 1990). 17 National Business Forms & Printing, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 671 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2012). 2 Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum Incorporated, 130 F.3d 88, 91-92 (4th Cir. 1997). 2 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961). 8 Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 263 (1982). 3, 4, 7, 29, 32 Reader’s Digest Association v. Conservative Digest, Inc., 821 F.2d 800 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 2 Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1427-1428 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1147. 3 Sioux Falls v. First National Bank South Dakota, 679 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2012). 2 Two Peso, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1990). 8 United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). 27, 29 ix Table of Authorities continued Page(s) STATUTES: 15 U.S.C. 1051(b)(1). 7 15 U.S.C. 1114(1) and 1125(a)(1). 7 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125(a). 2, 7 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A). 2, 18 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). 1 Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act). 1, 7 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: Constitution of the United States Amendment VII. 4, 29 RULES AND REGULATIONS: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 39(b).. 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a)(6). 29, 30 OTHER: Jason Koransky, First Take: Of Genres and Generations,” Downbeat, Vol.78, No. 11, (Nov. 2006). 13 Anne Gilson Lalonde, Gilson on Trademarks (2016). passim J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2016). 3, 9, 26 x Table of Authorities continued Page(s) Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (2008). 17 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Lee Jason Kibler respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW The opinion and judgment of the court of appeals (Appendix, infra, 1a-30a) (“App.”) is reported at 843 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 2016). The order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (App. 31a-45a) are not yet reported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on December 13, 2016. On March 1, 2017, Associate Justice Elena Kagan extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including May 12, 2017. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATUTES INVOLVED The relevant provisions of the Trademark Act are more fully set forth in Appendix J, infra. STATEMENT The issues presented are of exceptional importance to uniform application of the likelihood of confusion test for trademark infringement under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. 2 1114(1) and 1125(a)(1). These issues arise in almost every federal trademark infringement case. The application of this important trademark law test in district courts and on appeal should be uniform.