Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Not “identical, or nearly identical”:
Plaintiff’s logo (left) and defendants’ logo

Last year, E! Entertainment Television, Inc., sued Entertainment One GP Limited, d/b/a E1 Entertainment, and four related entities in the Central District of California for trademark infringement.

E! Entertainment operates television networks and owns a number of “E!” design marks.

The Entertainment One defendants distribute third-party CDs and DVDs; operate a record label; and own and distribute niche and direct-to-video movies. They conduct business in connection with an “E1” design mark, though only two of the five defendants have ever used the mark in the United States.

E! Entertainment moved for a preliminary injunction.

The court denied the motion, finding:

• E! Entertainment did not show that the parties’ marks are similar;
• The parties do not compete with respect to the same goods or services;
• E! Entertainment did not present any evidence showing that its customers — primarily casual television viewers — exercise a low degree of care, whereas defendants demonstrated their customers exercise a high degree of care;
• There is widespread third-party use of “E” marks in the entertainment field;
• Consumers are not likely to be confused by defendants’ “E1” marks; and
• E! Entertainment did not present any evidence of actual confusion.

E! Entertainment appealed these findings.

On Jan 26, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in finding there was no likelihood of confusion.

The court added: “We have held that a party seeking relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) must demonstrate that the marks are ‘identical, or nearly identical,’ so that a ‘significant segment of the target group of customers sees the two marks as essentially the same.’ We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the parties’ respective marks are not nearly identical under this standard.” 

The case cite is E! Entertainment Television, Inc. v. Entertainment One GP Limited, 2010 WL 331505, No. 09-55937 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).