Opinion ID: 1291747
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Finding Of Initial Interest Confusion

Text: Because the district court ruled that any initial interest confusion was not actionable, Perfumebay seeks to appeal a decision upon which it prevailed. However, courts review judgments, not statements in opinions. Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Pacific Lumber Co., 257 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A party who receives all that he has sought generally is not aggrieved by the judgment affording the relief and cannot appeal from it. Id. (citations omitted). Perfumebay failed to demonstrate that it has the requisite standing to appeal the district court's favorable ruling. See id. In any event, the district court did not clearly err in its initial interest confusion analysis. [A]ctionable initial interest confusion on the Internet is determined, in large part, by the relatedness of the goods offered and the level of care exercised by the consumer. Interstellar Starship Servs., 304 F.3d at 945 (citation omitted). Of course, the remainder of the Sleekcraft factors complete the case-by-case inquiry necessary to evaluate initial interest confusion on the Internet. Id. The district court had a valid basis for finding initial interest confusion. [3] The in-court demonstration reflected that consumers might be confused by search results for perfume and eBay that provided links to Perfumebay. Based on the search results, a consumer might assume that Perfumebay is part of eBay's web site or one of eBay's internet stores. Additionally, initial interest confusion is analyzed pursuant to the Sleekcraft factors for likelihood of confusion. See Interstellar Starship Servs., 304 F.3d at 945. As discussed, there is a likelihood of confusion given the marks' similarities, the marketing channels utilized, and the similarity of the products.