Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. ( 2013 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-1488
_____________
KINBOOK, LLC,
Appellant
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-10-cv-04828)
District Judge: Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 7, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 10, 2013)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
This is a reverse trademark infringement case in which Kinbook, LLC
(“Kinbook”) 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 “Kinbox” 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.
2