• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, August 13, 2015

High-end watch manufacturer Multi-Time Machine is asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reject Amazon's request for a new hearing in a dispute about its search results.

"While this case, like many in the Ninth Circuit, is certainly important, it is not of such 'exceptional public importance' as to justify ...review," the company says in court papers filed on Wednesday.

Multi-Time Machine's papers come in response to Amazon's attempt to vacate a recent 2-1 decision issued by a panel of the 9th Circuit. The majority judges said that Amazon potentially infringed Multi-Time Machine's trademark by returning links to different watch brands, like Luminox and Chase-Durer, in response to consumers' searches for "Multi-Time Machine."

That 2-1 reversed a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Dean Pregerson in the Central District of California, who dismissed Multi-Time Machine's lawsuit. The panel's decision sent the case back to Pregerson for a trial.

The two judges in the panel's majority said they agreed with Pregerson that Multi-Time Machine didn't provide evidence showing that any consumers who made purchases were confused about what they were buying. Nonetheless, the judges ruled that Amazon potentially infringed trademark by causing so-called "initial interest confusion," or confusion that "creates initial interest in a competitor's product."

Amazon is now asking the 9th Circuit for a new "en banc" hearing -- meaning that the appeal would be decided by 11 of the court's judges instead of just three.

That request is backed by the tech companies Google, Google, Twitter, Pinterest, eBay and Yahoo. They argue in court papers filed earlier this month that Amazon shouldn't have to face a trademark infringement lawsuit based on "a mere possibility of confusion by an unsophisticated consumer."

The companies also say they are concerned that the panel's opinion could "give rise to a tide of trademark lawsuits based on only a speculative possibility of confusion."

The digital rights groups Public Citizen and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also supporting Amazon. Those organizations argue that companies have drawn on the controversial "initial interest confusion" concept to attempt to suppress online speech.

Multi-Time Machine, which doesn't sell watches on Amazon, says in its latest papers that the panel correctly decided that Amazon must face trial over its search results pages.

"Amazon’s results screen contains no labeling advising the customer that alternative products are being offered in place of the specific product being searched for," Multi-Time Machine says.

The appellate court hasn't indicated when it will rule on Amazon's request for a new hearing.