Opinion ID: 158202
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intent of the Defendants

Text: 32 The proper focus under this factor is whether defendant had the intent to derive benefit from the reputation or goodwill of plaintiff. Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1485 (10th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Universal Money Ctrs., 22 F.3d at 1532. Plaintiff argues that although it has no direct evidence of bad intent, a jury could infer defendants' intent to derive the benefit and goodwill of KOM's mark because they failed to conduct a full trademark search before using the phrase king of the mountain. We disagree. As the district court noted, Plaintiff has presented no evidence to suggest that the defendants were even aware of plaintiff's existence, let alone that they intentionally attempted to trade on plaintiff's reputation or goodwill. King of the Mountain Sports, 968 F. Supp. at 574. Instead, uncontested evidence indicates: 33 (1) defendants did not know of plaintiff or its trademarks when they designed their logo; (2) defendants knew that no other competitor in the ski-race industry used the term King of the Mountain; and (3) defendants incorporated the phrase King of the Mountain to describe the goal of the ski racers competing in the event to be the king of the mountain in downhill ski racing. 34 Id. Because the undisputed evidence indicates [that the] defendant[s] did not intend to derive benefits from . . . plaintiff's existing mark, this factor weighs against the likelihood of confusion. Heartsprings, 143 F.3d at 556; accord First Sav. Bank, 101 F.3d at 655. 35