## Facts

- Multi Time Machine, Inc. (MTM) makes high-end, military-style watches and owns a federal trademark registration for “MTM SPECIAL OPS” for timepieces.
- MTM sells directly and through selected retailers and does not sell through Amazon; MTM did not authorize Amazon to sell MTM watches.
- Amazon operates a retail website with a search function that returns results based on more than exact text matching.
- When a user searched Amazon for “mtm special ops,” the query appeared in the search box and in a “breadcrumb” line, and Amazon displayed listings for other watches (e.g., Luminox and Chase-Durer) that Amazon sold.
- Each displayed listing included the competing watch’s brand/manufacturer, product details, price, and a photograph.
- The results page did not state that MTM products were unavailable and did not show a “no results” message for MTM watches.
- MTM alleged the presentation diverted consumers by creating initial-interest confusion that the competitor watches were affiliated with, sponsored by, or acceptable substitutes authorized by MTM.

## Issues

1. Whether Amazon’s search-results page responding to a search for “mtm special ops” was likely to cause consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the watches displayed, including under an initial-interest confusion theory.
2. Whether summary judgment for Amazon was proper on MTM’s Lanham Act infringement-related claims given the page’s use of MTM’s mark in connection with listings for non-MTM products.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Amazon.
- The court held that Amazon’s search-results page, as presented, was not likely to confuse a reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to online shopping, including as to initial-interest confusion.
- The majority emphasized that the page clearly identified the competing products by brand and manufacturer and included photographs and other differentiating information.
- The court noted the absence of evidence of actual confusion and the relatively high price point of the watches, supporting greater consumer care.
- A dissent would have allowed a jury to consider whether repeating “MTM Special Ops” without an explicit unavailability notice could mislead consumers and divert initial interest.

## Legal Principles

- The central element of trademark infringement is whether the challenged conduct is likely to confuse consumers about the source of the products.
- Initial-interest confusion can be actionable even if confusion is dispelled before purchase, but it requires a plausible likelihood that consumers will be misled in a manner attributable to the defendant’s presentation.
- In evaluating likelihood of confusion in an online search-results context, the specific page display and what a reasonably prudent online consumer would understand may be more probative than a full mechanical application of multifactor tests.
- Clear labeling of each product’s brand/manufacturer, coupled with product images and details, can defeat a claimed likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.
- Evidence (or lack) of actual confusion and the level of consumer care associated with higher-priced goods are relevant to whether confusion is likely.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Amazon’s search-results page for “mtm special ops” did not likely confuse reasonably prudent online shoppers because the displayed products were clearly labeled and visually identified as competitors’ watches, and it affirmed summary judgment for Amazon despite MTM’s initial-interest confusion theory.


Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015)