Legal Opinion
Pom Wonderful v. Robert Hubbard, Jr.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 30, 2014No. 14-55253PublishedCited by 157 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EBEL, Circuit Judge:
This appeal arises from the district court’s order denying Plaintiff-Appellant Pom Wonderful’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Pom Wonderful—the owner of the “POM” standard character mark— brought a trademark infringement claim against Defendant-Appellee Robert G. Hubbard, Jr., d/b/a Portland Bottling Company and Pur Beverages (“Pur”) to stop Pur from using the word “pom” on its pomegranate-flavored energy drink. The district court denied Pom Wonderful’s motion, finding that Pom Wonderful is unlikely to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion and…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Alliance for Wild Rockies v. CottrellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Munaf v. GerenSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by157 opinions
- Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Leslie Feldman v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Ofc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- State of Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene TribeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
152 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.