Opinion ID: 727991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: summary judgment--trademark

Text: 80 CMM also contends that the district court erred in granting WPOR's motion for summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim. Although CMM concedes that the district court applied the correct legal standard by addressing the eight likelihood of confusion factors set forth in Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir.1989), see 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), it raises a number of arguments challenging the district court's reasoning and conclusion. We only address one of its arguments, however, as we find that the others have been waived. 81 In CMM's twenty-page memorandum in opposition to WPOR's motion for summary judgment, a mere three sentences with three undiscussed citations were dedicated to trademark issues. The only argument advanced in its skeletal discussion was that likelihood of confusion is a factual issue for the jury, not a legal issue determinable by the court as a matter of law on summary judgment. 26 The law in this circuit is crystalline: a litigant's failure to explicitly raise an issue before the district court forecloses that party from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Boston Beer Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co., 9 F.3d 175, 180 (1st Cir.1993). 82 In its reply brief, CMM insists that it preserved the additional trademark arguments it now advances. Pointing out that it challenges the district court's decision on the grounds that the district court used faulty reasoning, it first argues that we cannot find waiver because it could not possibly waive a challenge to the court's reasoning as it did not know what that reasoning would be ex-ante. The second reason CMM advances in support of its contention that its arguments were properly preserved is that its verified complaint alleged a likelihood of confusion between Payroll Payoff TM and WPOR's Payday Contest and that its twenty-page memorandum in support of its preliminary injunction motion contained an exhaustive analysis of the Boston Athletic factors. 27 83 We have little trouble, however, in concluding that there is absolutely no merit to CMM's preservation arguments or, for that matter, to another argument it could have advanced: i.e., that we should find its arguments preserved because they were advanced in its motion for reconsideration. All of these arguments are insufficient to prevent a finding of waiver and fall on deaf ears. As we have explained before, not only can parties not claim error based on arguments which the district court never had a chance to timely consider, but courts are also entitled to expect represented parties to incorporate all relevant arguments in the papers that directly address a pending motion. See generally McCoy v. Massachusetts Inst. of Techn., 950 F.2d 13, 22 & n. 7 (1st Cir.1991) (citing cases), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 910, 112 S.Ct. 1939, 118 L.Ed.2d 545 (1992). 84 Despite our well-established rules and customary practice, Boston Beer, 9 F.3d at 181, CMM nonetheless insists in its reply brief that we should not find waiver, suggesting that, because it has not raised any new theory on appeal that was not presented in its memorandum of law in support of its preliminary injunction motion, it has not ambushed WPOR or the district court. See, e.g., McCoy, 950 F.2d at 22. We are unpersuaded by this argument for two reasons. First, contrary to CMM's contention, we note that the exhaustive analysis submitted in connection with its preliminary injunction motion does not contain much of that same analysis and case law [that] is re-used in [its] initial [appellate] brief. CMM's Reply Brief, p. 24. Second, CMM's contention misses the point that concerns about parties and courts being ambushed is not the only reason for the raise-or-waive rule: In opposing motions, parties cannot expect a trial court to do [their] homework for [them]. McCoy, 950 F.2d at 22 (noting as much in Rule 12(b)(6) context). Thus, notwithstanding the possibility that this case does not implicate concerns about ambush, CMM simply cannot expect to shirk its affirmative responsibility to put [its] best foot forward in an effort to present some legal theory that will support [its] claim, id., 950 F.2d at 23, that WPOR is not entitled to summary judgment on CMM's trademark claim. The district court was under no obligation to rummage through CMM's preliminary injunction filings made more than seven months earlier. Cf. id. at 22 n. 7. (the district court was under no obligation to rummage through later-filed items pertaining to other matters in an attempt to vitalize [an] anemic argument contained in an opposition to dismissal motion). While CMM arguably did advance the seeds of its legal theories underlying its appellate arguments, the dispositive fact remains that CMM failed to advance any of these appellate arguments to the district court in connection with the summary judgment motion: Overburdened trial judges cannot be expected to be mind readers. Id. at 22. CMM cannot expect the district court to transform CMM's preliminary injunction arguments into a substantive opposition to WPOR's motion for summary judgment, speculating as to what CMM would argue and developing its arguments. 85 Because we see no reason to diverge from these rules, we treat all but one of CMM's trademark arguments as waived. We only pause to add this: We are particularly reluctant to diverge from our customary practice given that CMM's trademark arguments challenging the grant of summary judgment came not only two weeks after the district court's summary judgment decision, but also because, in all probability, they were advanced in response to the district court's explicit observation that CMM failed to advance any trademark-related arguments in opposition to WPOR's motion for summary judgment. This is but another factor that convinces us that, even if CMM argued that its motion for reconsideration preserved its arguments, we would conclude that advancing arguments in its motion for reconsideration comes too late to resurrect its right to make these arguments on appeal. 86 We turn then to CMM's only preserved argument: that the Boston Athletic factors cannot be determined as a matter of law in this case by reason of the likelihood-of-confusion prong. As the district court noted in rejecting this argument, this court has upheld the grant of summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of confusion on more than one occasion. See, e.g., Astra Pharmaceutical Prods., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, 718 F.2d 1201, 1204-09 (1st Cir.1983); Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 487-92 (1st Cir.1981). Although CMM argues on appeal that Astra, at least, is distinguishable, CMM failed to make this argument below; indeed, it utterly failed to explain (much less with any specificity) why this case is distinguishable or, for that matter, why it should not be decided on summary judgment. Because this argument was presented below in only the merest of skelet[al] forms, see McCoy, 950 F.2d at 22, we decline to consider its merits. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1082, 110 S.Ct. 1814, 108 L.Ed.2d 944 (1990).