N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL SWANSON, a n individual, DB A Juic y B its, DB A juic y bitssoftwa

re .c om , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. INSTAGR

AM LLC , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-35970 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00503-M JP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 5, 2018 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C LIFTON, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. Appe lla nt M ic h a e l Swa

nson (Swa

nson) a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s de te rm i nation tha

t the te rm “ l ay out” is ge ne ric whe n use d in the c onte xt of m obile
a pplic a tions. Re vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lusions denov o , a nd its 

# FIL ED MAR 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.fa c t

ua l findings for c le a

r e rror, we a ffirm
. Se e Inde p. Training &

Appre ntic e

ship Program v . C

al. De p’t of Indus. Re lations , 730 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th C ir. 2013). To the e x te nt Swa

nson a ppe a ls the de nia l of the re que ste d pre lim ina ry injunc tion,
we re vie wfor an a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd a ffirm
. Se e Epona, LLC v . C ty . of Ve ntura , 876 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th C ir. 2017).

“ [G] e ne ric te rm s a

re c om m on de sc riptivenam e s whic h ide ntify only the ty pe of good of whic h the pa rtic ula r produc t or se rvic e is a spe c ie s. . . .” Elliott v
. Google , Inc
. , 860 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th C ir. 2017), a s ame nde d (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Ge ne ric te rm s, de sc ribing “ what” a produc t is, do not e n joy tra de m ark prote c tion “ be c a u se the y do not ide ntify the sourc e of a produc t.” Id. at 1155-56. C onve rse ly , “ [i] f the re le va nt public prim arily unde rsta nds a m a rk a s de sc ribing ‘ who’ a

pa rtic ula r good or se rvic e is,” the n the
m ark is e ntitle d to prote c tion. Id. at 1156 (obse rving tha t “ [w] e hav e ofte n de sc ribe d this a s a

‘ who-a re -y ou/wha

t-are -y ou’ te st” ). 1 C ritic a l to our inquiry is the c onte x t in whic h the propone nt of the m ark e m p loy s the te rm . Se e Adv e rtise .c om, Inc . v . AOL Adv e rtising, Inc
. , 616 F.3d 974, 977 (9th C ir. 2010).

1 B e c a use we re solve this c a se unde r our tra ditiona l te s t for ge ne ric ne ss, we ne e d not a

nd do not a ddre ss the distric t c ourt’ s a ddition of a “ w hat do y ou do” inquiry
. 2The re c ord re fle c ts tha t whe n use d

in the m obile a

pplic a tion c onte xt, the
re le va nt public unde rsta

nds the te rm

“ la y out” a s an ide ntific at ion of the ty pe of good, ra the r tha n the produc e r of the good. Eviden c e be fore the distric t c ourt
e sta blishe d tha

t t he te rm “ la y o ut” signifie s a

pla n or a rrange m e nt, or the a c t of la y ing out. C onsiste nt with this de finition, Swa nson’ s a pplic a tion, “ Lay o ut,” func tione d a s a

tool to a rrange photogra

phs into a la y out on a use r’ s m obile de vic e . The te rm “ la

y out,” the re fore , ope ra te d to ide ntify what Swa

nson’ s photo
a pplic a tion wa s, a s oppose d to who offe re d it. Se e id. a t 978. Suc h use is ge ne ric , and not e ntitle d to tra de m ark prote c tion. Se e id. B e c a use the distric t c ourt
c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha

t “ la y out” is ge ne ric in this c onte x t, it prope rly de nie d Swanson’ s m otion for a

pre lim i na

ry injunc tion. Se eHe rb Re e d Ente rs., LLC v . Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc
. , 736 F.3d 1239, 1247 (9th C ir. 2013) (re quiring a tra de m a rk pla intiff to show like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits be fore a pre l im ina ry injunc tion will issue ). AFFIRM E D.

3