Opinion ID: 506117
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis of State Trademark and Unfair Competition Claims.

Text: 33 The district court was also correct in granting summary judgment on all state law claims. The standard of review for summary judgment on state trademark infringement and unfair competition claims is the same as that for the corresponding federal claims: questions of state law are reviewed de novo, and conclusions regarding the likelihood of confusion are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Levi Strauss, 778 F.2d at 1361 (relying upon Matter of McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc) and United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d at 1199-1204). 34 California statutory trademark infringement is proved if anyone uses a mark that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered in the state, on or in connection with goods or services for which the genuine mark is registered. Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Sec. 14340. This claim is proved by Century 21's registrations of its marks in California; by Sandlin using his similar mark in the provision of identical services; and by the district court's finding of a likelihood of confusion. 35 Likelihood of confusion is also the test in California for whether use of a similar business name constitutes unfair competition. In re Marriage of Shelton, 118 Cal.App.3d 811, 816, 173 Cal.Rptr. 629, 631 (1981). Prevailing on a state trademark infringement claim also entails prevailing on the state unfair competition claim, since common law and statutory trade-mark infringements are merely specific aspects of unfair competition, and trade name infringement ... is part of the larger tort of unfair competition and it is based on considerations similar to trade-mark infringement. New West Corp., 595 F.2d at 1201. 36 California's antidilution statute does not require a showing of likelihood of confusion. Levi Strauss, 778 F.2d at 1362; Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Sec. 14330 (West 1984). All that need be shown is the likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark. Id. Sec. 14330. Actual injury need not be proven. We agree with the district court that use of Century Investments & Realty in the real estate brokerage context could dilute Century 21's distinctive mark.