`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PINTEREST, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`PINTRIPS, INC.,
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. 13-cv-04608-HSG
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT AND
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`In this case, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Pinterest, Inc. (“Pinterest”) alleges that its
`
`rights to its “Pinterest,” “Pin,” and “Pin It” word marks are infringed by the “Pintrips” and “Pin”
`
`word marks used by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Pintrips, Inc. (“Pintrips”). Pinterest asserts
`
`five causes of action: (1) federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
`
`(2) false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125(c); (4) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and (5) trademark
`
`dilution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247. Pinterest asks the Court to permanently enjoin
`
`Pintrips from using the Pintrips and pin marks. For its part, Pintrips seeks a declaration from the
`
`Court that its use of the Pintrips and pin marks does not infringe, as well as an order cancelling
`
`Pinterest’s pin registrations (at least in part) if those registrations are construed to prohibit the
`
`manner in which Pintrips uses the term.
`
`This matter was tried to the Court, sitting without a jury, from May 18, 2015 to May 27,
`
`2015. On July 3, 2015, the parties submitted post-trial briefs, see Dkt. Nos. 251 (“Pl. Br.”) and
`
`248 (“Def. Br.”), and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, see Dkt. Nos. 250 (“Pl.
`
`FFCL”) and 249 (“Def. FFCL”). The parties filed reply briefs three weeks later. See Dkt. Nos.
`
`254 (“Pl. Reply Br.”) and 253 (“Def. Reply Br.”). Closing arguments were heard August 28,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`2015. The Court has carefully considered the evidence presented at trial, the exhibits admitted
`
`into evidence, the parties’ briefs, and the arguments of counsel. This memorandum opinion will
`
`constitute the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`The Court has original jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (claims arising under the
`
`Lanham Act), as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367(a). Venue is proper in this district
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the parties reside in this judicial district and a substantial
`
`portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred here.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Pinterest
`
`Launched in March of 2010, the Pinterest website permits its users to view, post, and
`
`organize content in which they are interested by creating pins on their virtual Pinterest “Pinboard.”
`
`Pins are pieces of digital content that are shaped like a vertical rectangular box, and contain a
`
`photo, caption, and various action buttons. To create a pin, users can either go to a different
`
`website and transfer content by clicking on a “Pin It” action button, or browse content others have
`
`already pinned on Pinterest and “re-pin” that content to their Pinboard. Some pins, called “rich
`
`pins,” are associated with a particular product offered by one of Pinterest’s partners. For example,
`
`a rich pin of a pair of sandals from a shoe retailer’s website will automatically show the current
`
`price of the sandal and whether it is in stock.
`
`Pinterest permits its users to create multiple Pinboards with different subject matters.
`
`Some of the most popular areas about which Pinterest users create pins on Pinterest are recipes,
`
`fashion, home décor, and travel. Regardless of its subject matter, each Pinboard a Pinterest user
`
`creates is viewable by all other Pinterest users by default. Pinterest users have the option to
`
`change the default by creating “secret” boards that only they and their specifically invited friends
`
`can see. In November of 2013, Pinterest launched a particular type of Pinboard called a “Place
`
`Board,” which allows Pinterest users to add location information to certain pins. Many Pinterest
`
`users use these Place Boards as part of their vacation and travel-related research on Pinterest.
`
`Pinterest owns two federal trademark registrations for the word mark “PINTEREST,” see
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Trial Exhibit (“TX”) 23; TX24, and two federal trademark registrations for the word mark “PIN,”
`
`see TX25; TX26. It does not have a federal trademark registration for the word mark “PIN IT.”
`
`Pinterest has used each of the Pinterest, Pin, and Pin It word marks since March of 2010.
`
`B. Pintrips
`
`Pintrips is a website-based travel planning service that enables users to monitor the price
`
`fluctuations of airline flights. Co-founder and CEO Stephen Gotlieb came up with the concept of
`
`Pintrips (initially called Flightrax) in 2010 and created a mockup for the service as part of a class
`
`project for his MBA program in January of 2011. In order to use the Pintrips service, users must
`
`create an account on the Pintrips website and download a Google Chrome browser extension.
`
`Once installed, the Chrome browser extension inserts Pintrips’ pin button next to airline itineraries
`
`when the user visits certain third-party travel websites. When a Pintrips user clicks on the pin
`
`button next to an itinerary, that itinerary is automatically “pinned” to that user’s “Tripboard” on
`
`the Pintrips website. Once pinned, the price displayed next to the itinerary on the user’s Tripboard
`
`will update to reflect the flight’s real-time pricing and availability. Pintrips users may return to the
`
`Tripboard at any time to see if their pinned flights have changed in price and to compare their
`
`pinned travel options side-by-side. When a Pintrips user decides to purchase a flight, he or she
`
`may click on the pinned itinerary, which redirects the user to the website from which the flight
`
`was originally pinned.
`
`Pintrips’ default configuration permits only individual users to access and view the trip
`
`information stored on each Pintrips user’s Tripboard. Access to this information may be shared
`
`with other Pintrips users only when the Pintrips user grants authorization to an individual email
`
`address to view his or her Tripboard. Email addresses may only be invited one at a time; Pintrips
`
`does not allow users to share their Tripboards with all other Pintrips users or any subset of Pintrips
`
`users. Users can communicate with each other through a Pintrips chat feature once they are
`
`invited to collaborate on the same Tripboard.
`
`Pintrips does not own any federal trademark registrations. Its current application for
`
`registration of the “PINTRIPS” mark has been administratively stayed pending the outcome of this
`
`case.
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court was presented with three primary questions at trial: (1) does Pintrips’ use of the
`
`“Pintrips” mark infringe Pinterest’s rights to its registered “Pinterest” mark; (2) does Pintrips’ use
`
`of the term “Pin” infringe Pinterest’s rights to its registered “Pin” and/or unregistered “Pin It”
`
`marks; and (3) was Pinterest sufficiently famous at the time Pintrips first used its marks in
`
`commerce to support a trademark dilution claim. The Court resolves each question below.
`
`A.
`
`“Pinterest” vs. “Pintrips”
`
`The Lanham Act prohibits the “use[ ] in commerce [of] any word, term, name, symbol, or
`
`device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin” that “is likely to cause
`
`confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of
`
`such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods.”
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). To establish trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff
`
`must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid, protectable ownership interest in a mark, (2) its mark is
`
`the senior mark, and (3) the defendant’s mark is likely to cause consumer confusion in the
`
`marketplace. Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 2012);
`
`see also Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1046-47 (9th Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`In this case, Pinterest asserts that Pintrips’ name infringes its registered Pinterest word
`
`mark. There is no dispute that Pinterest has a valid, protectable ownership interest in the Pinterest
`
`mark, and that the Pinterest mark is senior to the Pintrips mark. Pinterest’s trademark registration
`
`is prima facie evidence of the validity of its marks. 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). Accordingly, the
`
`resolution of this infringement claim turns on whether the Pintrips mark is likely to cause
`
`consumer confusion in the marketplace. Specifically, the question is whether consumers are likely
`
`to mistakenly believe that Pintrips is “somehow affiliated with or sponsored by” Pinterest. Cohn
`
`v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG
`
`Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he question here is whether a reasonable
`
`consumer attending a [convention sponsored by the plaintiff] might do so believing that it is a
`
`convention sponsored by [the defendant].”).
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`To answer this question, the Court applies the eight-factor test articulated by the Ninth
`
`Circuit in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979). The “Sleekcraft
`
`factors” include: (1) the strength of the allegedly infringed mark; (2) the proximity of the parties’
`
`goods; (3) the similarity of the parties’ marks; (4) the extent to which there is evidence of actual
`
`confusion; (5) the marketing channels used by the parties; (6) the degree of care likely to be
`
`exercised by the purchasers of the parties’ products; (7) the alleged infringer’s intent in selecting
`
`its marks; and (8) the likelihood of expansion of the parties’ product lines. Id.
`
`The courts’ application of the eight Sleekcraft factors in determining the likelihood of
`
`confusion is supposed to be “pliant,” and the Ninth Circuit has warned against “excessive rigidity”
`
`in their application. Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 632 (9th Cir. 2008). Instead,
`
`“[t]he test is a fluid one and the plaintiff need not satisfy every factor, provided that strong
`
`showings are made with respect to some of them.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406
`
`F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Dreamwerks, 142 F.3d at 1129-32 (allowing case to
`
`proceed past summary judgment where the plaintiff overwhelmingly satisfied three Sleekcraft
`
`factors). Courts have extensive discretion in determining how much weight to accord each factor
`
`based on the circumstances of the case. See Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304
`
`F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`As will be discussed in more detail below, after considering each Sleekcraft factor and
`
`balancing them as a whole, the Court finds that the factors considered in their totality weigh
`
`against a finding that consumer confusion is likely.
`
`1. The “Pinterest” Mark is Suggestive
`
`The purpose of examining the strength of the plaintiff’s mark is to determine the scope of
`
`trademark protection to which the mark is entitled. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d
`
`1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). The strength of the senior mark determines the scope of trademark
`
`protection which applies. Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at 631 n.3. The strength of the junior mark,
`
`while important in cases of reverse infringement, is not relevant to the Court’s analysis outside of
`
`that context. See La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867, 875 (9th Cir.
`
`2014) (“This is not a reverse infringement case, and the district court should not have considered
`
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`the strength of [defendant’s] mark in determining what level of trademark protection to extend to
`
`[plaintiff’s] mark.”).
`
`Trademarks are divided into five categories. The two strongest sets of marks are
`
`“arbitrary” and “fanciful” marks, which trigger the highest degree of trademark protection.
`
`Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1141. The third category, “suggestive” marks, do not “describe
`
`the product’s features, but suggest[] them.” Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo
`
`Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 1047 n.8 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphases omitted). Examples include
`
`“Slickcraft” boats, or “Air Care” for a service that maintains medical equipment for administering
`
`oxygen. Id.; see also Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 349. The fourth category of marks is referred to as
`
`“descriptive.” Kendall–Jackson Winery, 150 F.3d at 1047. An example of a descriptive mark is
`
`“Honey Roast” for nuts roasted with honey. Id. at 1047 n.8. Because these marks merely describe
`
`a characteristic of the product, they do not receive any trademark protection unless they acquire
`
`sufficient “secondary meaning” to create an association between the mark and the product. Id. at
`
`1047. The final category of marks consists of “generic” marks, which “describe the product in its
`
`entirety, and which are not entitled to trademark protection. Examples include ‘Liquid controls’
`
`for equipment that dispenses liquid, or ‘Multistate Bar Examination’ for a bar examination that
`
`may be taken across multiple states.” Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at 632 (citation omitted).
`
`In this case, the parties agree that “Pinterest” is at least a suggestive mark, which entitles it
`
`to trademark protection without a showing of secondary meaning. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 349
`
`(“Although less distinctive than an arbitrary or fanciful mark and therefore a comparatively weak
`
`mark, a suggestive mark will be protected without proof of secondary meaning.”). While Pinterest
`
`argues that the Pinterest mark may straddle the line between suggestive and arbitrary, Pl. Br. at 5,
`
`the Court finds that Pinterest is clearly a suggestive mark. Suggestive marks “subtly connote
`
`something about the products.” Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 349; see also Zobmondo Entm’t, LLC v.
`
`Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A suggestive mark is one for which ‘a
`
`consumer must use imagination or any type of multistage reasoning to understand the mark’s
`
`significance . . . the mark does not describe the product’s features, but suggests them.’”)
`
`(emphases and citation omitted). Here, the Pinterest mark is a combination of the words “pin” and
`
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“interest” mashed together to create a new word. Accordingly, while understanding the meaning
`
`of the “Pinterest” mark requires the public to employ the multistage reasoning that differentiates
`
`suggestive marks from those that are merely descriptive, the combination of “pin” and “interest”
`
`cannot reasonably be said to be arbitrary or fanciful. The Pinterest mark is a textbook example of
`
`a suggestive mark that “subtly connote[s] something” about the company’s services, Sleekcraft,
`
`599 F.2d at 349, in that it conveys to users that the website allows them to pin their interests.
`
` The Court’s conclusion that Pinterest is a suggestive mark does not end the inquiry under
`
`this factor. Identifying whether a mark is arbitrary, fanciful, suggestive, descriptive, or generic is
`
`only the first step. The second step is to determine the strength of the mark in the marketplace,
`
`i.e., the commercial strength of the mark. One Indus., LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distrib., Inc., 578 F.3d
`
`1154, 1164 (9th Cir. 2009). “When similar marks permeate the marketplace, the strength of the
`
`mark decreases. In a crowded field of similar marks, each member of the crowd is relatively weak
`
`in its ability to prevent use by others in the crowd.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The
`
`more likely a mark is to be remembered and associated in the public mind with the mark’s owner,
`
`the greater protection the mark is accorded by trademark laws.” GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney
`
`Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1207 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`Pintrips offers little argument to dispute that “Pinterest” is a commercially strong mark.
`
`See Def. Br. at 18. At the time of the bench trial, approximately one-quarter of the United States’
`
`population (i.e., 80 million people) used the Pinterest website each month. The Court was not
`
`presented with evidence that the marketplace is crowded with other similar names. Although the
`
`Ninth Circuit has noted that suggestive marks are “comparatively weak,” Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at
`
`349, the Pinterest mark should be afforded greater protection than most other suggestive marks
`
`given its commercial strength. Accordingly, the Court finds that this Sleekcraft factor weighs
`
`slightly in favor of Pinterest.
`
`2. The Proximity of the Parties’ Goods or Services
`
`“Goods or services that are closely related are generally more likely than unrelated goods
`
`or services to confuse the public as to their sources.” La Quinta, 762 F.3d at 875 (citation
`
`omitted). The proximity of the parties’ products is relevant to the confusion analysis in that “[f]or
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`related goods, the danger presented is that the public will mistakenly assume there is an
`
`association between the producers of the related goods, though no such association exists. The
`
`more likely the public is to make such an association, the less similarity in the marks is requisite to
`
`a finding of likelihood of confusion.” Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 350 (citation omitted). The public is
`
`likely to make such an association “when the goods are complementary, the products are sold to
`
`the same class of purchasers, or the goods are similar in use and function.” Id.; see also
`
`Brookfield Commc’ns, 174 F.3d at 1056 (“[T]he relatedness of each company’s prime directive
`
`isn’t relevant. Instead, the focus is on whether the consuming public is likely somehow to
`
`associate [the defendant’s] products with [the plaintiff].”) (citation omitted).
`
`Pinterest argues that the Pinterest and Pintrips websites are related because both companies
`
`offer “services related to the travel industry generally” and “collaborative products that allow
`
`consumers to plan travel using the Internet.” Pl. Br. at 6-7. Pinterest points to evidence
`
`introduced at trial demonstrating that Pinterest users often use its website to research their travel
`
`destinations and activities. See Tr. at 72:4-7 (“So a lot of people will use Pinterest to plan dream
`
`vacations, honeymoons, as we saw earlier. I’ve used it to plan travel itineraries for people coming
`
`to visit me in cities.”); id. at 72:16-17 (“There are lots of pins that will provide ideas about how
`
`you can save money or find the best -- best travel tips.”); id. at 73:7-9 (“[W]e worked with Travel
`
`+ Leisure Magazine to get some coverage for Place Pins at launch, then to explain how people use
`
`Pinterest for travel.”). Pinterest also offered evidence that it allows users to create place pins on
`
`their Place Boards, which adds specific location information to a pin. See Tr. at 58:22-24 (“That’s
`
`a button that would allow the user to add some data to that pin using a partner that we have called
`
`[F]oursquare so that they can identify the actual location of that pin.”). Certain pins can be
`
`associated with indicators called “map markers,” which show the user where, for example, a pin of
`
`a hotel would be located on a map. See Tr. at 60:22-61:6.
`
`While the Court credits the testimony of the Pinterest witnesses who discussed how
`
`Pinterest is used to research travel destinations, the Court disagrees that this use is similar to
`
`Pintrips’ service. Pintrips is an online tool that tracks fluctuating airline prices by providing users
`
`the ability to save flight itineraries from multiple airline websites to a single location. See Tr. at
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`464:2-474:14. After searching airline websites and pinning the itineraries they wish to track,
`
`Pintrips users may then return to the Pintrips website—without needing to duplicate the effort of
`
`their initial search—to see whether their selected flights have become more or less expensive. Id.
`
`Pintrips does not provide users the opportunity to research their travel destinations, identify sights
`
`to see while traveling, or gather ideas for new travel destinations from other users, given that all
`
`Pintrips Tripboards are, by default, private. Id. at 476:1-477:11. The only arguable “social
`
`media” aspect of the Pintrips site is a function allowing users to individually invite other users
`
`(generally traveling companions or people making travel arrangements on the user’s behalf) to
`
`access a particular trip so that those users can also view and pin itineraries for the primary user’s
`
`trips. Id.; see also id. at 661:10-23.
`
`In contrast, Pinterest is a social media website where users can share photos, articles, and
`
`other information about their interests on personalized web-based Pinboards which are, by default,
`
`viewable by all of Pinterest’s 80 million monthly users. Tr. at 61:25-62:3. Travel is just one of
`
`the dozens and dozens of exceptionally broad subject-matter categories about which Pinterest
`
`users choose to pin. Tr. at 125:5-126:7. While Pinterest users undoubtedly use the service to
`
`research their travel destinations (as well as hundreds of other subjects), that fact does not render
`
`Pinterest’s social media service similar to Pintrips’ airline itinerary-tracking tool. Pinterest has no
`
`travel booking function; is not working on a travel booking function; and has no concrete plan to
`
`begin working on a travel booking function in the future. See Tr. at 88:14-15 (“We’ve discussed
`
`[expanding Pinterest’s products to facilitate booking travel], but we haven’t specifically set a date
`
`when we would start working on something like that.”). That Pinterest may aspire to provide a
`
`tool similar to Pintrips’ service at some unknown point in the future is too speculative and
`
`indefinite to weigh in favor of a finding of proximity under this factor.
`
`In further support of its argument, Pinterest cites to a few emails in which Pintrips
`
`executives refer to Pinterest as a possible competitor. See, e.g., TX40; TX186. Although the
`
`Court agrees that these statements are relevant to its analysis, the Court finds the comparison of
`
`the services actually performed by the Pinterest and Pintrips websites to be more persuasive than
`
`the representations made by Pintrips’ executives to a public relations firm and in an investor pitch
`
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`deck. For example, in Mr. Gotlieb’s November 7, 2012 email to an employee at a public relations
`
`firm, he states that “[t]he main competitors Pintrips has are meta-sites. . . . The other competitors
`
`are either players that need to pivot and like our idea or newcomers.” TX40 at
`
`PINTRIPS_00006790. In what appears to be almost an afterthought, Mr. Gotlieb states that
`
`“[o]ne more competitor would actually be Pinterest.” Id. at PINTRIPS_00006791. The Court also
`
`does not find the “WHY INVEST NOW?” section of an investor pitch deck introduced at trial
`
`through Pintrips’ Chief Product Officer, Sheila Bijoor, to override the Court’s analysis of the
`
`parties’ services. See TX186 at PINTRIPS_00006824 (“[I]nvest in us NOW because we have the
`
`ingredients for success, and there is competition in the market from players like Pinterest – so we
`
`have no time to waste!!”) (capital lettering and exclamation points in original). Both emails
`
`appear tailored to evoke a comparison to an already successful company, rather than serve as a
`
`reasoned analysis of Pintrips’ realistic competitors. The Court agrees with Ashley Raiteri, a travel
`
`industry consultant who was an integral player in the genesis of the Pintrips product (and who has
`
`substantially more experience working and consulting in the travel industry than Mr. Gotlieb or
`
`Ms. Bijoor, Tr. at 640:16-642:4), that Pinterest is not a competitor of Pintrips, Tr. at 672:2-5
`
`(stating that he did not “consider Pinterest to be a competitor of [Pintrips] or its products”).
`
`Although this Sleekcraft factor does not weigh quite as overwhelmingly in favor of Pintrips
`
`as it would in the absence of the emails cited by Pinterest, the Court finds that this factor still
`
`strongly weighs against a likelihood of consumer confusion.
`
`3. Similarity of the Parties’ Marks
`
`“The similarity of the marks is ‘a critical question in the likelihood-of-confusion
`
`analysis.’” La Quinta, 762 F.3d at 875 (citation omitted). To assess similarity, courts must
`
`“compare the two marks in terms of sight, sound, and meaning, considering the marks as a whole,
`
`as [they] appear in the marketplace.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
`
`Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 351 (“Similarity of the marks is tested on three levels: sight, sound, and
`
`meaning.”). Similarities between marks generally weigh more heavily than differences, id., and
`
`the amount of similarity required to support a likelihood of confusion decreases where the services
`
`at issue are themselves similar, La Quinta, 762 F.3d at 876 (citations omitted).
`
`10
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`a. Sight
`
`There are undeniable visual similarities between the “Pinterest” and “Pintrips” marks.
`
`Each mark begins with the word “pin” and then continues with another word (or portion of
`
`another word) beginning with the letter “t.” The marks are also the same approximate length: nine
`
`letters for Pinterest and eight letters for Pintrips. However, this is not a case where the allegedly
`
`infringing mark differs in only one or two inconspicuous letters in the middle of the mark, see
`
`Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 351 (Sleekcraft and Slickcraft), or is identical save for different emphasis
`
`on one of the letters, see Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2014)
`
`(observing the “o” in “POM” is heartshaped, and the “o” in “pom” has a breve over it). Here, the
`
`second half of each mark bears significant differences (i.e., “terest” and “trips”). While the
`
`differences in the latter half of the marks do not completely overcome the visual similarities
`
`identified above, they lessen the weight the Court gives to this sub-factor. Accordingly, this sub-
`
`factor weighs only slightly in favor of a finding of confusion.
`
`b. Sound
`
`“Sound is also important because reputation is often conveyed word-of-mouth.”
`
`Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 351. “Slight differences in the sound of trademarks will not protect the
`
`infringer.” Id. at 352 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pintrips argues that the
`
`marks do not sound the same because Pintrips is a two-syllable word, while Pinterest is a three-
`
`syllable word. Def. Br. at 17. Although Pintrips may be correct as a matter of grammar, the Court
`
`accepts Pinterest’s argument (which is consistent with the pronunciations used by counsel and
`
`witnesses at the trial) that, in the real world, Pinterest often may be pronounced with two syllables
`
`(i.e., “Pin-trist”). Regardless, whether pronounced with two or three syllables, there is sufficient
`
`similarity in the sound of each mark to plausibly cause consumer confusion. The first syllable of
`
`each mark is identical, as is the first letter of the second syllable, followed very closely (although
`
`not immediately in the Pinterest mark) by an “r”. Accordingly, while the marks do not sound
`
`identical when spoken, they sound sufficiently similar for this sub-factor to favor a finding of
`
`confusion.
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:13-cv-04608-HSG Document 261 Filed 10/21/15 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`c. Meaning
`
`“Closeness in meaning can itself substantiate a claim of similarity of trademarks.”
`
`Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 352. In this case, both marks are “made up” words that do not appear in
`
`the dictionary. Pinterest is a “mashup” or “telescoped” word, in that it combines two words (pin
`
`and interest) but does not repeat the two shared letters at the end of pin and the beginning of
`
`interest. Pintrips is a compound word comprised of two words (pin and trips) with no shared
`
`letters removed. Although both words suggest that consumers will be able to perform the well-
`
`known computer operation of pinning, each mark also suggests that the services permit consumers
`
`to pin different things: interests for Pinterest and trips for Pintrips. In other words, the only shared
`
`meaning associated with the two marks is based on the descriptive term “pin.” When viewed as a
`
`whole, the Court finds that the meanings of these made-up words do not support a finding of
`
`likelihood of consumer confusion. Accordingly, this sub-factor weighs in favor of Pintrips.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`In summary, the sight sub-factor weighs slightly in favor of Pinterest, the sound sub-factor
`
`weighs in favor of Pinterest, and the meaning sub-factor weighs in favor of Pintrips. Considering
`
`all three similarity sub-factors together, the Court finds that this Sleekcraft factor weighs slightly
`
`in favor of a finding of consumer confusion.
`
`4. Evidence of Actual Confusion
`
`“Evidence that use of the two marks has already led to confusion is persuasive proof that
`
`future confusion is likely.” Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 352. However, due to “the difficulty in
`
`garnering such evidence, the failure to prove instances of actual confusion is not dispositive. . . .
`
`[T]his factor is weighed heavily only when . . . the particular circumstances indicate such evidence
`
`should have been available.” Id.; see Brookfield Commc’ns, 174 F.3d at 1050 (“[D]ifficulties in
`
`gathering evidence of actual confusion make its absence generally unnoteworthy.”).
`
`As observed by the Ninth Circuit in many other cases, it is unsurprising that there is little
`
`evidence of actual confusion here. Pinterest points to a single email sent to Pintrips’ customer