Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com

No one can resist shopping online in today’s busy times. Online retailing is one of the low costing and productive methods of earning more profits without much effort put in. Take Amazon for example. Amazon, in a bid to gain potential consumers, display alternative products when they look for the initial product they liked. These complementary products very often can turn into competitive products by showing other brands selling the same good. This move boomerangs on the brand owner as very often the consumer can be lured into buying the competitor’s product when their intention was not so.

Take the case of Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 2013 WL 638888 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013)

Multi Time Machine (MTM), the plaintiff, makes expensive “military and tactical” watches and tightly controls its distribution channel to prevent resales on Amazon. Hence, when potential customers visited Amazon and looked for a product ‘MTM Special OPS’, Amazon’s search results did not procure any result for MTM products due to their distribution channel norms. Instead, on searching for MTM products, the search results showed the watches that belonging to MTM’s competitors, like Luminox and Chase-Durer.

Hence, it can be said that Amazon merchandises its customers. MTM sued Amazon for trademark infringement. It was a battle on the terms of owner v. retailer lawsuit for merchandising competitor’s products. This cannot be a typical trademark infringement as Amazon is just abiding by the rules set for them.

The Court emphasized the fact that Amazon did not create any likelihood of confusion among potential consumers. Simply by posting products of different brands, would not amount to any infringement. The search results page prima facie explains to the consumers that they are spoilt for choice. An illustrative analogy is provided by the Court:

“the instant situation does not appear to be a case of palming off in the traditional sense. It is akin to the consumer asking for a Coca-Cola and receiving a tray with unopened, labeled, authentic cans of Pepsi-Cola, RC Cola, Blue Sky Cola, Dr. Pepper, and Sprecher Root Beer, and a copy of Coca Kola: The Baddest Chick, by Nisa Santiago. This is a substitution, but given the context, it is not infringing because it is not likely to confuse.”

In legal parlance, the doctrine of palming off is applied to the particular facts of a case in which the defendant is accused of engaging in Unfair Competition against the plaintiff.

In the present case, the potential consumers would definitely understand the difference between competing brands shown on the search results page. The Court held that merchandising by online retail stores of its search results does not violate any Trade Mark Law.

While any Trade Mark owner may not be happy with the competitors being displayed on any retail store, be it online or offline, there is nothing much that he can do to prevent the same.

About the Author: Ms. Madhuri Iyer, Trade Mark Attorney at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at Madhuri@khuranaandkhurana.com

Follow us on Twitter: @KnKIPLaw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

18 − 13 =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010