Court Opinion

ID: 9396164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:32.845966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.410040
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AL McZEAL, AKA Alfred McZeal, Jr.,              No. 21-56328
DBA Smart Walkie Talkie,
                                                D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07093-SVW-RAO
                Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC; ORION
LABS, LLC; JESSE ROBBINS; BEST BUY
CO., INC.; SETTER ROCHE, LP;
THOMAS SYLKE; DOES, 1 thru 10,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Al McZeal appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

action alleging federal and state law claims stemming from defendants’ purported

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). McZeal’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
trademark infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In re Dual-

Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 11 F.3d 1460, 1463 (9th Cir. 1993).

We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed McZeal’s trademark infringement and

unfair competition claims because they are barred by the classic fair use doctrine.

See id. at 1467 (holding that district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of

trademark infringement was proper where allegations in complaint demonstrated

“fair use as a matter of law”); see also KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting

Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 121 (2004) (holding that “some possibility of

consumer confusion must be compatible with fair use”); Grupo Gigante SA de CV

v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general matter,

trademark claims under California law are ‘substantially congruent’ with federal

claims and thus lend themselves to the same analysis.” (citation omitted)); Cleary

v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that California

unfair competition claims based in trademark infringement are substantially

congruent to Lanham Act claims).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McZeal’s motion

for a preliminary injunction because McZeal failed to demonstrate a likelihood of

success on the merits. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d

                                           2                                     21-56328
953, 958, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction

where the movant failed to show likelihood of success on the merits).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McZeal’s motion

for reconsideration because McZeal failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

      We reject as meritless McZeal’s contentions that the district court’s orders

are void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                      21-56328