## Facts

- GoTo.com operated a pay-for-placement internet search engine and, beginning in December 1997, used a service mark featuring stacked “GO” and “TO” in white inside a green circle, often displayed on a yellow square background, with “.com” appearing to the right.
- GoTo promoted the mark extensively online and through offline advertising (e.g., buses, billboards, radio, print).
- In April 1998, Disney prepared to launch the “Go Network” web portal and adopted a logo also using a green circle on a yellow background with white “GO” lettering, used across Disney web properties and marketing.
- GoTo objected to Disney’s logo and filed suit on February 18, 1999, alleging trademark infringement under Lanham Act § 43(a) and related claims.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction on November 12, 1999, barring Disney’s use of the challenged logo, later modifying the injunction to permit a phase-out.
- Disney appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Disney’s “Go Network” logo was likely to cause consumer confusion with GoTo’s mark under Lanham Act § 43(a), supporting injunctive relief.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding likely success on the merits and irreparable harm for a preliminary injunction.
3. Whether laches or unclean hands barred or materially weakened GoTo’s request for equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held GoTo made a strong showing of likely success on the merits because the marks were highly similar, used for closely related internet services, and encountered through the same marketing channel (the Web).
- The court accepted that a strong likelihood-of-confusion showing supported a presumption of irreparable harm in the trademark context.
- The court rejected Disney’s laches and unclean-hands defenses as insufficient on the record to defeat preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a) infringement turns on whether the defendant’s use of a mark is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Likelihood of confusion is evaluated under the Sleekcraft factors; in the web context, similarity of the marks, relatedness of goods/services, and shared use of the internet as a marketing channel carry particular weight.
- A preliminary injunction may issue upon a showing of probable success on the merits and possible irreparable harm (or serious questions plus a sharply tipping balance of hardships).
- In trademark cases, a strong showing of likely confusion supports a presumption of irreparable injury, including loss of control over a mark and harm to goodwill.
- Laches requires unreasonable delay causing prejudice; unclean hands requires sufficient evidence of inequitable conduct related to the claim for relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld preliminary injunctive relief because GoTo showed a strong likelihood that Disney’s similar “Go” logo used for related web services would confuse consumers, and that likely confusion supported presumed irreparable harm; equitable defenses did not defeat the injunction at the preliminary stage.


GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2000)