FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 12, 2010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 31 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cv -0 07 05 -TW T

ALAVEN CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC., a Del aware co rp or at io n,
Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an tApp el la nt ,

ve rs us DRFLORAS, LLC, a Del aware co rp or at io n,
Defen da nt -Co un te r-Cl ai m an t, App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 0)
Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:App el la nt Alav en Co ns um er Heal th care , In c. m an uf ac t u r e s an d se ll s no npr es cri pt io n he rb al su pp le men ts an d in te st in al cl ean se r pr od uc ts un de r th e pr im ary

tra de m ark Co lo ni x an d th e ho us e tra de m ark D r N a t ur a. Alav en se ll s it s DrNat ur abr an de d pr od uc ts di rect ly t o co ns um ers ov er th e in te rn et

. App el le e DrFl or es , LLC

m an uf act ur es an d se ll s no n- p res cri pt io n he rb al su pp le m en ts an d in te st in al cl ean se r

pr od uc ts un de r th e m ark DrFl or as

. DrFl or as se ll s it s pr od uc ts di rect ly to co ns um ers

ov er t he in te rn et

. Alave n sued DrFl or as , al le gi ng tra de m ark in fri ng em en t un de r th e Lan ha m Act,

15 U.S.C. § 11 14 , fed eral un fai r co m pe ti ti on an d fal se de si gn at io n of or ig in un de r 15

U.S.C. § 11 25 (a), tra de m ark di lu ti on , an d va rio us st a te la w cl ai m s. Alav en ’s

tra de m ark in fri ng em en t an d un fai r co m pe ti ti on cl ai m s were ba se d on it s al le ga ti on s
th at de fen da nt ’s “ DrFl or as ” m ark co ul d l ik el y cau se co nf

us io n a m on g c on su m ers

. Th e d i s tri ct co ur t gr an te d DrFl or as ’ m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t , fin di ng th at Alav en ’s “ DrNat ur a” m ark an d “ DrFl or as ” were in su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to

crea te tri ab le is su es of ei th er tra de m ark in fri ng em en t or un fai r co m pe ti ti on

. The
di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d C ou nt s I, II , V, VI, V II, an d IX o f Ala ve n’s Co m pl ai nt

. The pa rti es joi nt ly m ov ed to ha ve th e di st ric t co ur t’s su m m ary jud gm en t or de r

cert ifi ed fo r im m ed ia te ap pe ll at e rev ie w pu rs ua nt to Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 54 (b ). In th ei r

m ot io n, th e p a r t i e s st at ed th at th ey wan te d an im m ed ia te ap pe al to av oi d th e

2po ss ib il it y of “ two di sjo in te d tri al s,” an d th at th e ou tc om e of th is ap pe al wou ld affe ct

th ei r de si re t o p ro ceed wit h t he pe nd in g fa ls e ad ve rti si ng cla im s. T he di st ric t cou rt

gr an te d t he m ot io n a nd cert ifi ed th is cas e u nd er Ru le 54 (b ).
Befo re us on ap pe al is th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on Co un t

I (fed eral tra de m ark in fri ng em en t) an d Co un t II (fed eral un fai r co m pe ti ti on an d fal se
de si gn at io n o f or ig in ). Alav en arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t er red 1) i n d et erm in in g
th e st ren gt h of Alav en ’s m ark an d in as se ss in g th e si m il ari ti es be twee n th e m ark s; 2)

in de te rm in in g th at “ act ua l con fu si on ” was a “ m os t i m po rta nt ” fac to r in ass es si ng a

co m pe ti ng m ark ’s li ke li ho od of co nf us io n; 3) in de te rm in in g th at an in fere nc e of ba d
fai th sh ou ld no t be dr awn fro m DrFl or as ’ act io ns ; 4 ) by ev al ua ti ng Alav en ’s co un t
fo r fed eral un fai r co m

pe ti ti on un de r th e sa m e ru br ic as th e co un t fo r fed eral

tra de m ark in fri ng em en t; an d 5 ) in refu si ng to gra nt Alav en ’s req ue st for Ru le 56 (f)
di sc ov ery.
Trad em ark la w on ly pr oh ib it s th e us e of a m ark or na m e if, whe n us ed in

c on ne ct io n wit h a th ird pa rty’ s go od s or se rv ic es , th e m ark is li ke ly to cau s e

co ns um er co nf

us io n re ga rd in g t he so ur ce, s po ns or sh ip , or o rig in of th os e se rv ic es

. Freh li ng Ent er

s., In c. v. In t’l Se le c t G r o u p , In c. , 19 2 F.3 d 13 30 , 13 35 (1 1t h Ci r.
19 99 ). In ou r ci rcu it , “ [a]lt ho ug h li ke li ho od of co nf us io n is a qu es ti on of fact , it m ay

3be de ci de d as a m at te r of la w.” Ta na v. Dan ta nn a’ s , 61 1 F.3 d 76 7, 77 5 n.7 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

. Alav en ch al le ng es th e di st ric t jud ge ’s an al y si s. W e do no t va cat e an d rem an d

an or de r gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t m erel y fo r an erro r in an al y si s, h owe ve r. We
wil l affi rm if th e res ul t is co rrec t. Se e, e.g ., All en v. Bd. of Pub

. Edu c. of Bib b Cn ty

. , 49 5 F.3 d 13 06 , 13 11 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (d is ag reei ng wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s an al y si s,
bu t affi rm in g it s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t ). Afte r a rev ie w of th e reco rd , we ag ree
wit h t he di st ric t co ur t’s d is po si ti on of Alav en ’s c la im s be cau se th ere is in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce of li ke li h o o d of co nf us io n be twee n th e two m ark s to warra nt tri al

. And , Alav e n ’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ev al ua te d Alav en ’s c ou nt fo r
fed eral un fai r co m

pe ti ti on un de r a di ffer en t ru br ic th an th e co un t fo r f e d e r al

tra de m ark in fri ng em en t is an is su e th at Alav en fai le d to rai s e i n th e di st ric t co ur t. 1

“ The la w in ou r ci rcu it is cl ear th at ‘argu m en ts no t pr es en te d in th e di st ric t co ur t wil l

no t be co ns id ered fo r th e fir st ti me o n a p p eal .’ ” St er li ng Fin

. In v. Grp ., In c. v.
Hammer , 39 3 F.3 d 12 23 , 12 26 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Mil ls v. Si ng le ta ry , 63 F.3 d

99 9, 10 08 n.1 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 95 ). Fu rth er, we fin d no ab us e o f di sc ret io n in th e

I n its memorandum in support of its motion for partial summary judgme nt, DrF loras arg ued 1 that the analy ses wer e the same for trade mark infring ement and fede ral unfair competition. (R.2-9, Ex

. 1, Memorandum of L aw lat 10 n.5). Alaven failed t o contend otherwise in its Response in Opposition to DrF loras’ Motion (R.3-20), in its Supplement to I ts Response in Opposition (R.4-21, Supplement), or in its Sur-Reply Br ief (R.4-28, Sur- Reply Br ief).
4di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Alav en ’s m ot io n fo r le av e to co nd uc t di sc ov ery un de r Ru le

56 (f).

AFFIR MED.

5