## Facts

- King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. (KOM) sold camouflage-patterned outdoor clothing and mountaineering accessories, marketed mainly through catalogs and specialty retailers to serious outdoors consumers.
- KOM owned two federal registrations for stylized “King of the Mountain” marks using Gothic lettering, mountain imagery, and dark, camouflage-like color schemes.
- Chrysler sponsored the “Jeep King of the Mountain Downhill Series,” using a logo with a downhill skier and “King of the Mountain” in large, bold, uppercase lettering with bright colors, used in televised events, event signage, promotions, and related merchandise.
- Chrysler adopted its logo without knowledge of KOM’s marks or product line.
- KOM offered evidence of seven instances of alleged actual confusion, generally involving people associating Chrysler’s promotional materials with KOM.

## Issues

1. Whether Chrysler’s “Jeep King of the Mountain” branding for a ski-racing series and related promotions created a likelihood of confusion with KOM’s registered marks for outdoor clothing and accessories under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where KOM presented some evidence of actual confusion but other likelihood-of-confusion factors favored defendants.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Chrysler and the other defendants on KOM’s trademark-infringement claims.
- Viewing the record in KOM’s favor, the court held no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion.
- The court found the marks’ overall commercial impressions materially different in design, context, and marketing channels.
- The court treated the seven reported confusion incidents as limited and insufficient to create a triable issue given the full factor balance.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark infringement requires a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Likelihood of confusion is evaluated through a multi-factor test, including: similarity of the marks, intent, actual confusion, relatedness of goods and marketing channels, purchaser care, and strength of the plaintiff’s mark.
- Similarity is assessed by overall commercial impression in marketplace context, not by isolating shared words.
- Summary judgment is appropriate on likelihood of confusion when, on undisputed facts, no reasonable factfinder could find confusion.
- A small number of anecdotal confusion instances may be insufficient to defeat summary judgment when other factors strongly weigh against confusion, especially where markets and uses differ and there is no bad-faith adoption.

## Conclusion

The court held that Chrysler’s use of “Jeep King of the Mountain” for a televised ski-racing series was unlikely to confuse consumers about affiliation with KOM’s outdoor apparel brand, so defendants were entitled to summary judgment on infringement claims.


King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999)