N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GLOB EFILL INC ORPOR ATED, a C an a dia n c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. ELEM ENTS SPIR ITS, INC ., a C a lifornia c orporation a

nd KIM B R

ANDI, a n individua l, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55456 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02034-C B M
PLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

GLOB EFILL INC ORPOR ATED, a C an a dia n c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ELEM ENTS SPIR ITS, INC ., a C a lifornia c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, And No. 14-55577 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02034-C B M
PLA 

# F IL ED F EB 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.KIM B R

ANDI, a n individual, De fe nda

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C onsue lo B . M arsha ll, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PR EGER SON, WARDLAW , an d HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Globe fill Inc . a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of its m otions for judgme n t
a s a m a tte r of la

w or for a ne w tria l, whic h followe d a jury ve rdic t in fa vor of Ele m e nts Spirits, Inc . a

nd Kim B ra ndi. Ele m e nts c ross-a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of its m o tion for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Globe fill’ s m otion for judgme nt
a s a m a tte r of la

w. The jury

wa s re quire d to c onside r the e ight fa c t ors la i d out in AMF Inc . v . Sle e k

c raft Boats , 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th C i r. 1979), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Matte l Inc . v . W alk ing Mountain Prods. , 353 F.3d 792, 810 & n.19 (9th C ir. 2003). This wa s a c lose c a s e , a

nd the jury

c ould ha ve re a sona

bly
re solve d m any of the Sle e k c raft fa c tors in thede fe nda nts’ fa vor, inc luding c ritic a l fa c t ors like the sim i la

rity of the C ry s ta l He a d and KAH tra d e dre s se s. Se e Fortune

2Dy namic

, Inc . v . Vic toria’s Se c re t Store s Brand Mgmt., Inc
. , 618 F.3d 1025, 1031–32 (9th C ir. 2010). C onstruing the e v ide nc e “ in the light m ost fa vora ble to the n onm oving pa

rty ,” W e av ing v . C

ity of Hillsboro , 763 F.3d 1106, 1117 (9th C ir. 2014), the jury ’ s ve rdic t is “ supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e , ” Pav a o v . Pagay , 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th C ir. 2002). 2. The distric t c ourt did, howe ve r, a buse its disc re tion in de n y ing Globe fill’ s
m otion for a

ne w tria l ba se d on Ele m e nts’ m isc onduc t during sum m a tion. Globe fill a de quate ly

pre se rve d this issue for a ppe a l by m a king a c onte m p orane ous obje c tion. Se e He mmings v . Tidy man’s Inc
. , 285 F.3d 1174, 1193 (9th C i r. 2002) (c iting K aise r Ste e l C

orp. v . Frank

C oluc c io C onstr. C o. , 785 F.2d 656, 658 (9th C ir. 1986)). As the

distric t c o urt re c ogniz e d, Ele m e nts’ disc ussion of Globe fill’ s re sponse to the pe tition Ele m e nts file d in M e xic o wa s im prope r be c a

use it re fe rre d to a doc um e nt not in e vide nc e . Se e J anic h Bros. v
. Am. Distilling C o. , 570 F.2d 848, 860 (9th C ir. 1977). Ele m e nts a lso m isre pre se n te d the c onte nts of tha t doc um e nt, se e Unite d State s v . Alv arado , 838 F.2d 311, 317 (9th C ir. 1987), a nd fa lse ly im plie d tha t Globe fill de libe ra te ly

c onc e a le d the doc um e n t from the jury , se e M aric opa C

o unty v . Mabe rry , 555 F.2d 207, 217–19 (9th C i r. 1977). Although lim ite d to c losing a

rgum e nt, this m

isc onduc t “ suffic i e ntly pe rm e a te [d] [the ] e ntire proc e e ding,” Standard Oil C o. of C a l. v . Pe rk

ins , 347 F.2d 379, 388 (9th C ir. 31965), be c a

use it unde rm ine d Globe fill’ s c re d ibility on the de te rm inative issue in the c a se
—

w he the r or not the re wa s a like lihood of c onfusion be twe e n Globe fill’ s
and Ele m e n ts’ tra d e dre sse s. Se e Mabe rry , 555 F.2d a t 219. W e the re fore re ve rse
and re m and for a

ne w tria l. 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Ele m e nts’ m otion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s . Unde r e ithe r the sta n d ard e sta

blishe d by Oc taneFitne

ss, LLC v . IC O N He alth &Fitne

ss, Inc
. , 134 S. C t. 1749 (2014), or by the the n-binding pre c e de nts
a pplie d by the distric t c ourt, this c a se is not “ e xc e ptiona l” within them e aning of the L an ham

Ac t. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 1117(a ). Globe fill pre se nte d c om pe l ling
e vide nc e re le va

nt to m any

of the Sle e k

c raft fa c tors, a n d its c a s e wa s not so we a k a s to “ suffic ie ntly

se t [this c a se ] a

pa rt from [the ] m ine -run [of] c a se s to wa rra nt a fe e
award.” Oc taneFitne

ss , 134 S. C t. at 1757. B e c a use we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt, e a c h pa

rty sha ll be ar its own
c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; RE V E RSE D IN PART ; RE M A NDE D.

4