## Facts

- Dreamwerks Production Group, Inc., a small Florida company, used the name “Dreamwerks” beginning in 1984 to organize science-fiction conventions and registered the mark in 1992.
- Its conventions featured fan activities, vendors, and occasional previews or promotion of major-studio science fiction and adventure/fantasy films.
- SKG Studio, doing business as DreamWorks SKG, was formed in 1994 as a major motion-picture studio and expanded into related entertainment businesses (e.g., interactive media, games, toys).
- Dreamwerks alleged “reverse confusion”: because DreamWorks was far more famous, consumers would assume Dreamwerks’ conventions were affiliated with, sponsored by, or licensed from DreamWorks.
- Dreamwerks sued under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and related false designation claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to DreamWorks, reasoning the parties’ “core functions” (conventions vs. film production) were too different for likely confusion.
- Dreamwerks appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Dreamwerks produced sufficient evidence of a likelihood of confusion, under a reverse confusion theory, to survive summary judgment.
2. Whether the district court erred by treating differences in the parties’ “core functions” as dispositive rather than evaluating consumer perception under the Sleekcraft factors.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held Dreamwerks raised a triable issue on likelihood of confusion under a reverse confusion theory.
- Applying Sleekcraft, the court found several factors could favor Dreamwerks, including similarity of the marks, the junior user’s commercial strength, and the plausibility of affiliation or sponsorship confusion in the entertainment context.
- The court rejected the district court’s narrow “core function” approach as inconsistent with trademark law’s focus on likely consumer confusion, including confusion as to sponsorship or affiliation.

## Legal Principles

- Reverse confusion occurs when a junior user’s stronger market presence leads consumers to believe the senior user’s goods or services originate with, are sponsored by, or are affiliated with the junior user.
- The Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion factors apply in reverse confusion cases, but their significance may shift, particularly regarding the junior mark’s commercial strength and its capacity to overwhelm the senior user’s identity.
- Similarity in sight, sound, and meaning can support likely confusion even with minor spelling differences.
- Trademark infringement does not require direct competition; relatedness may be shown by complementary goods or services and reasonable consumer assumptions about sponsorship, affiliation, or licensing.
- On summary judgment, the court must assess whether a reasonable jury could find likely confusion when evidence is viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that, given the similarity between “Dreamwerks” and “DreamWorks” and DreamWorks’ dominant marketplace presence, a reasonable jury could find reverse confusion that misattributes Dreamwerks’ convention services to DreamWorks, so the infringement claims could not be resolved as a matter of law.


Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1998)