Statement of Jurisdiction
I.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district court and this Court have subject matter jurisdiction over
this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question) and Section
1338(a) (trademarks). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291(a)(1) in that this is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered after the district court granted a motion for partial summary judgment. See LaVine v. Blaine School Dist., 257 F.3d. 981 (9th
Cir. 2001).
The district court entered the order from which appeal No. 02-17353 was taken on October 22, 2002. Defendant/appellant JSL Corporation
(“JSL”) timely filed its Notice of Appeal on November 20, 2002. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4. The district court entered the order from which appeal No. 0315420 was taken on February 12, 2003. JSL timely filed a Supplemental
Notice of Appeal on March 3, 2003. See Fed. R. App. P. 4.
JSL filed a motion to consolidate appeal Nos. 02-17353 and 03-15420 on April 16, 2003. Plaintiff/appellee Visa International Services Association
(“Visa”) does not oppose that motion. That motion is pending.
II.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1.
Whether summary judgment in favor of Visa’s dilution claim
was proper, when Visa’s famous trademark, “VISA,” is not distinctive –
1
tem1506.doc
indeed, is generic -- with respect to circumstances in which the English word
"visa" is used in its immigration/travel sense and that is the sense in which
JSL uses the word within its mark, “evisa.”
2.
Whether summary judgment in favor of Visa’s dilution claim
was proper under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent case of Moseley v. V
Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. __, 123 S. Ct. 1115 (2003), when the district court applied a “likelihood of dilution” standard instead of the
“actual dilution” standard confirmed in Moseley and the record is bereft of evidence sufficient to establish actual dilution.
III.
REVIEWABILITY AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Each issue is
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district court and this Court have subject matter jurisdiction over
this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question) and Section
1338(a) (trademarks). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291(a)(1) in that this is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered after the district court granted a motion for partial summary judgment. See LaVine v. Blaine School Dist., 257 F.3d. 981 (9th
Cir. 2001).
The district court entered the order from which appeal No. 02-17353 was taken on October 22, 2002. Defendant/appellant JSL Corporation
(“JSL”) timely filed its Notice of Appeal on November 20, 2002. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4. The district court entered the order from which appeal No. 0315420 was taken on February 12, 2003. JSL timely filed a Supplemental
Notice of Appeal on March 3, 2003. See Fed. R. App. P. 4.
JSL filed a motion to consolidate appeal Nos. 02-17353 and 03-15420 on April 16, 2003. Plaintiff/appellee Visa International Services Association
(“Visa”) does not oppose that motion. That motion is pending.
II.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1.
Whether summary judgment in favor of Visa’s dilution claim
was proper, when Visa’s famous trademark, “VISA,” is not distinctive –
1
tem1506.doc
indeed, is generic -- with respect to circumstances in which the English word
"visa" is used in its immigration/travel sense and that is the sense in which
JSL uses the word within its mark, “evisa.”
2.
Whether summary judgment in favor of Visa’s dilution claim
was proper under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent case of Moseley v. V
Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. __, 123 S. Ct. 1115 (2003), when the district court applied a “likelihood of dilution” standard instead of the
“actual dilution” standard confirmed in Moseley and the record is bereft of evidence sufficient to establish actual dilution.
III.
REVIEWABILITY AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Each issue is