The Vegas Trademark Attorney has a nice write-up on the Ninth Circuit’s Nov. 5 decision in Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc. Here’s the rub:
“The district court did not clearly err in finding that conjoined forms of ‘perfumebay’ created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The district court, therefore, properly enjoined Perfumebay from utilizing such infringing marks. The district court also did not clearly err in finding that the non-conjoined forms of Perfumebay’s mark, such as Perfume Bay, did not create a likelihood of confusion.
“However, the district court erred in holding that Perfumebay’s marks did not produce a likelihood of dilution, as the marks are nearly identical to eBay’s mark. The district court also erred in finding that eBay acted with unclean hands in its advertising, as the record did not affirmatively demonstrate the requisite intent to deceive.”
The case cite is Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., Nos. 05-56794 and 05-56902.