Opinion ID: 166617
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Articulating the appropriate legal standard

Text: 26 In the proceedings below, the district court held that in order to successfully recover an award of Hyundai's profits, Western must show that Hyundai chose the name THE HYUNDAI ADVANTAGE with the intent to benefit from Western's reputation or goodwill. 27 This statement is wrong for two reasons. First, the district court confuses Hyundai's manufacturing warranty, THE HYUNDAI ADVANTAGE with its extended warranties, ADVANTAGE and ADVANTAGE PLUS. The defendant's selection of HYUNDAI ADVANTAGE was not at issue in this particular summary judgment motion. The claims involving the manufacturer's warranties were already dismissed in the earlier summary judgment motion and were not appealed. 28 Second, to survive summary judgment, Western does not have to show that Hyundai's decision was made with the intent to benefit from Western's reputation or goodwill. It needs only to raise a genuine issue on this material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 29 The district court's errors were not without consequence. First, by confusing the manufacturer's and extended warranties, the district court incorrectly cited facts in support of its argument that applied only to the manufacturer's warranty. For instance, as evidence that Hyundai did not intend to benefit from the goodwill of Western's mark, the district court noted (1) that Hyundai spent a substantial sum of money promoting its warranties; and (2) that it conducted a trademark search prior to launching the product. Both of these facts are correct in relation to the manufacturer's warranty, but they do not pertain to Hyundai's extended warranties. Second, by failing to articulate the summary judgment standard, the court did not grant Western the benefit of the evidentiary inferences to which it is entitled at this stage of the proceedings. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ([O]n summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from the facts. . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.) (internal quotations omitted, alteration in original). 30 Thus, the appropriately articulated standard should have been as follows: In order to survive summary judgment on its claim for Hyundai's profits, Western must raise a genuine factual issue about whether Hyundai chose the names ADVANTAGE and ADVANTAGE PLUS for its extended warranties with the intent to benefit from Western's reputation or goodwill. 31