Opinion ID: 3031809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This case concerns the term “micro colors” and who has the right to use it. The parties use the term “micro color,” “microcolor,” and “micro colors” interchangeably. For purposes of this opinion, we will refer to the term as “micro color” or “micro colors.” The minor difference in these terms has no significance in this action. Lasting Impression I, Inc., owns an incontestable, registered trademark, which consists of the term “micro colors,” set in white, within a black box. It is the 5380 KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP v. LASTING IMPRESSION I registration for this composite mark that is the basis of this litigation. K.P. Permanent Make-Up, Inc. (“KP”) uses the term “micro colors” on its products and brochures. Upon receiving a cease and desist letter from Lasting Impression I, Inc., in January 2000 demanding KP discontinue its use of the term “micro color,” KP brought this action for declaratory relief against the defendants Lasting Impression I, Inc., and its distributor, MCN International, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Lasting”). KP asserted that Lasting did not have the exclusive right to use the term “micro colors” and that the term was generic and incapable of receiving trademark protection. Lasting counterclaimed, alleging that KP’s use of the term “micro color” infringed Lasting’s incontestable, registered mark. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The district court concluded that the term “micro colors” was generic, or if not generic, descriptive. The court then determined that KP was entitled to continue use of the term “micro colors,” in the manner that it had been since 1991, and that Lasting could continue to use its trademarked logo. Lasting appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of KP, and we reversed. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 328 F.3d 1061, 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (“KP I”). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 540 U.S. 1099 (2004), and vacated the judgment. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 542 (2004) (“KP II”).1 On remand, we continue to have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 The Supreme Court did not address our holdings “as to the generic or descriptive nature of the term ‘micro color’ and any secondary meaning that term has acquired by any of the parties.” KP II, 125 S. Ct. at 546 n.3. Accordingly, this amended opinion reinstates in full the sections of KP I resolving these issues. KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP v. LASTING IMPRESSION I 5381