Opinion ID: 2798236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Action to enter the market

Text: Consistent with the district court, we conclude that, even if Sukumar subjectively intended to enter the market for fitness machines, he took insufficient action to pursue that intent. See id. at –12. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact remains—Sukumar did not attempt to compete with Nautilus, so Sukumar did not suffer a competitive injury. Sukumar possesses a Master of Business Administration degree and previously held a career as an investment banker. Sukumar has little to no engineering knowledge of fitness machines or business experience in the fitness machine market. Sukumar contends that, to gain familiarity with Nautilus fitness machines, he purchased over 100 exercise machines from Nautilus. But Sukumar’s alleged attempt to compete with Nautilus ends here. Sukumar placed the Nautilus machines he purchased in storage for years. And despite the fact that over a decade passed between when Sukumar claims he developed the intent to compete with Nautilus and when Sukumar filed this case, the list of basic steps Sukumar did not take is long: Sukumar did not develop a business plan. Sukumar did not attempt to design a prototype. Sukumar did not hire any employees. Sukumar did not gain engineering knowledge. Sukumar did not investigate developing manufac- turing capacity. As the district court noted, the undisputed evidence establishes that, at the time Sukumar filed the suit, Sukumar had not taken sufficient action to enter the market for fitness machines. Id. at . Therefore, Sukumar was not engaged in competition with Nautilus 14 SUKUMAR v. NAUTILUS, INC. and did not suffer a competitive injury. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Nautilus because Sukumar lacks standing to bring a claim for false marking under § 292.