throbber
H /
`
`I
`
`Patent and Trademark Oflice
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3 513
`
`May 10, 2004
`
`Re: Notification for Resumption
`Opposition No: 91157392
`Serial No: 76435273
`
`China Healthways Institute, Inc.
`V.
`
`Xiaoming Wang
`
`
`
`us. menu-TM°*°’“" Ma“ mp‘
`
`Dear Sir/Madam:
`
`On May 3, 2004, United State District Court, Central District of California, ordered
`“East Health’s motion for summary judgment on China Healthways’ claim for
`federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition under Lanham
`Act is GRANTED for the terms: CHI, CHI BMCHINE, QGM, QI GONG
`MACHINE, CHAOS, and Q1 GONG MASSAGER”. (Page 66, line 12-16). Please
`see Exhibit A.
`
`Please resume the case (Opposition No. 91157392) at TTAB.
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`¢/%.e>._<i
`
`Xiaoming Wang. Ph.D.
`27 Calle Alamitos
`
`Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
`(949) 766-4809
`As Applicant
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`
`
`UNl'l'ED STATES DISTFICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFOFNIA
`
`Automated Document Delivery Service
`Notice pursuant to Rule 77ldl FRCiv.P
`
`The attached copy is hereby served upon you pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 7ld).
`
`Fax Notes:
`
`Case 2:02-CV-03137 : CHINA HEALTHWAYS INC V. CHI ANIMAL THERAP, ET AL
`
`Switch to e-mail delivery and get these documents sooner!
`To switch, complete and submit
`Optical Scanning Enrollment / Update form G-76.
`Call 213-894-5474 for help and free technical support.
`
`If you received this document in error because the attomey with whom this document is directed is no longer the attorney on the case,
`a Notice of Chan
`of Attorney Information, form G-6, must be filed.
`If there are other cases which you've received documents for
`which you are no anger the attorney, separate notices must be filed for each case. Failure to do so will result in die continued sending
`of documents to you. Form 6-6 is available on the court's website at www.cacd.uscourts. gov or at the Clerk ’s Office.
`
`

`
` FILED
`
`35 OLE!-1K.U.S DISTRICT COURT
`
`MAY -52004
`
`CSNTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`1*!‘nsv..n.-v-.
`
`.)‘..F".|‘Il"IL_I..a'
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Send
`--XT
`ET?’ Iuse
`
`_._._.
`__fl_0_
`-3 _.#
`
`JS-2/
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CHINA HEALTHWAYS INSTITUTE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`NO. CV 02-3 l37—LGB (JWJX)
`
`Scan 0n|y___
`
`v.
`
`CHI ANIMAL THERAPEUTICS, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN
`PART AND DENYING IN
`P A R T ,
`C H I ’N A
`HEALTHWAYS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AGAINST EAST HEALTH-
`ORDER GRANTING IN
`PART, AND DENYING IN
`PART
`EAST HEAL'I‘H’S
`CROSS-MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AGAINST CHINA
`HEALTHWAYS; ORDER
`DENYING CHINA
`HEALTHWAYS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AGAINST STOLTz- ORDER
`DENYING GHINA
`HEALTHWAYS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AGAINST FU' ORDER
`GRANTING IN PART AND
`DENYING IN PART, OHINA
`HEALTHWAYS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AGAINST LAL
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`.
`
`This Order addresses four summary judgment motions filed by PlaintiffChina .’
`Healthways Institute, Inc. (“China Healthways”) against various defendants in this ‘
`
`action and Defendant East Health Development Group, Inc.’s (“East Healt ”) cross-
`
`motion for summary judgment against China Healthways. The claims in this case
`
`include allegations ofcopyright, trademark, false advertising, and unfair competition
`
`violations.
`
`"1i'-n*::__I_.-
`
`_i
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`General Factual Background
`
`These facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
`
`Richard Lee (“Lee”) is the founder and President of China Healthways. I Lee
`
`Dec1.,1l 1.‘ Prior to 1990, Lee operated the business of China Healthways until its
`
`1 The Court has devised the following citation nomenclature to distinguish
`the pleadings filed in support of the different motions: (1) all pleadings filed in
`support of China Healthways motion against East Health shall be preceded by an
`“I”; (2) all pleadings filed in support of East Hea1th’s motion against China
`Healthways shall be preceded by an “II”; (3) all pleadings filed in support of
`China Healthways motion against Stoltz and Chi Animal shall be preceded by an
`“III”; (4) all pleadings filed in support of China Healthways’ motion against Fu
`shall be preceded by an “IV”; (5) all pleadings filed in support of China
`Healthways motion against Lal shall be preceded by a
`
`2
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`incorporation in 1999. I Lee Decl., 1] 3.2 In 1999, Lee assigned the rights and assets
`
`of the business to the corporation, China Healthways. 1 Lee Decl., 1] 3.
`
`I
`
`Beginning in late 1988 to early 1989, Lee began importing a series of i
`
`'
`
`therapeutic massagers from a Chinese factory known as Shen Yun Electronics
`
`Company (“Shen Yun”). 1 Lee Decl., 1] 3.’ The massagers had the name QIGONG
`
`HEALTH APPARATUS on the front of them. I Lee Dec1.,1] 3, Exh. 1.‘ Lee states
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2 Lee declares that he operated the business as a “sole proprietorship” until
`its incorporation in 1999. I Lee Decl., 1] 3. However, Defendant Fu, who is Lee’s
`ex-wife, declares that she was married to Lee from November 9, 1986 until 1997
`and that they operated the business together during that time. IV Fu Decl., 1] 4.
`Therefore, this fact is disputed.
`
`China Healthways objects to Fu’s declaration based on its contention that
`Fu previously requested a Chinese-English interpreter for her deposition testimony
`in an unrelated state court action. S_e_e IV Objs. Fu Decl., at 1; IV Lee Decl., 1] 23,
`Exh. 4. However, Fu stated in her deposition that she could read English. IV Lee
`Reply Decl., Exh. 4, 57:10-1 1. China Healthways has not presented any evidence
`that Fu does not speak English. Therefore, this objection is OVERRULED.
`
`3 East Health states that Lee, in his March 7, 2003 deposition, stated that he
`did not begin importing the massagers until 1989. However, Lee’s deposition
`testimony states that he began importing the massagers in 1988. II East Hea1th’s
`Unc. Facts, March 7, 2003 Lee Depo., 3924-5.
`
`* East Health has submitted the declaration of Lizhu Li (“Li”) which states
`that he is the General Manager of YingPu Electronics Co., Ltd (“YingPu”) of Shen
`Yun and that some of the massagers were manufactured with the name Qi-Gong
`Machine imprinted on them in 1986. II Li Decl., 1] 2. China Healthways objects to
`Li’s statement because he does not state that he worked for Shen Yun in 1986.
`
`Furthermore, Lee declares that Fa Zhuo Ran was‘ the general manager of Shen Yun
`when he was buying the massagers from Shen Yun from 1989 to 1995. 11 Lee
`Decl., 1] 3. The Court finds that Li has failed to establish a foundation to testify
`about matters at Shen Yun during any period other than the date of his declaration.
`
`3
`
`

`
`in his declaration that in June 1989, Lee instructed Shen Yun to change the name on
`
`the faceplate of the rnassager to Q1-GONG MACHINE.
`
`I Lee Decl., $1 4, Exh. 2, at
`
`38.5 Lee sent five letters to Shen Yun detailing some problems with the massagers.
`
`S_ee I Lee Dec1., Exh. 2, 39-42 & 45. Lee’s letter of April 21, 1994 praised Shen
`
`Yun’s latest product as being “of very good quality.” I_d. at 45. In or around 1990,
`
`Lee had an original line drawing created for the QI-GONG MACHINE. LL, 1] 5. Lee
`
`Z)L.)-‘iN.‘\iELl
`
`never obtained a written assignment agreement from the artist who created the
`
`drawing for him. Q In 1991, China Healthways began labeling its massagers
`
`INFRATONIC QGM. 1d,, 1| 6. China Healthways began purchasing its massagers
`
`from another manufacturer in China, Lu Yan Fang, in 1994. 11 Wang Decl., 1] 6; ILee
`
`Decl., 1[ 41. After China Healthways began purchasing its rnassagers from another
`
`manufacturer, it made further improvements to the original INFRATONIC QGM. I
`
`Lee Decl.,1[1] 14, 15, 16 & 17. The INFRANTONIC QGM 4.0 was developed in
`
`1997. Li. ‘H 17.
`
`Therefore, this objection is SUSTAINED.
`
`China Healthways also objects to Li’s declaration because Li previously
`submitted a declaration in Chinese in support of the opposition to the preliminary
`injunction motion and does not speak English. China Healthways has not
`submitted any evidence that Li does not speak English. Therefore, this objection
`is OVERRULED.
`
`5 China Healthways has submitted a letter from Lee to Shen Yun dated June
`15, 1989 which requests a change in the name on the faceplate. See I Lee Decl.,
`Exh. 2, at 38. However, the letter is not signed by Lee and Lee stated in his
`deposition that he did not know if he had mailed this particular letter to Shen Yun.
`11 East Health Uncon. Facts, 4/10/03 Lee Depo., 30: 19-3217.
`
`4
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`1 2 3
`
`In or about September 1995, a representative ofShen Yun contacted Xiaoming ,
`4 Wang aka Simon Wang (“Wang”). II Wang Decl., 1] 6. Shen Yun’s representative '
`
`told Wang that Lee had discontinued distribution of the INFRATONIC QGM in
`
`1994.
`
`I_d.“ Shen Yun’s representative told Wang that it was looking for a United
`
`States distributor to replace Lee. 1; Shen Yun changed the faceplate ofthe massager
`
`to Qi Gong Massager fiom INFRATONIC QGM. _Id_., 1] 7. Wang personally sold the
`
`Qi Gong Massager under a sole proprietorship using the fictitious business name East
`
`Health Development Group (“East Health”) from 1996 to the end of 1997. E, 1] 8.
`
`In January 1998, Wang incorporated his business in California as East Health
`
`Development Group, Inc. (“East Health”). LI. The machine is essentially half the
`
`size of a shoe box which is plugged into an electric outlet.
`
`I_d., 1] 13. The box
`
`generates a signal transmitted through a cord to a transducer (“handset”).
`
`Id. The
`
`transducer contains a diaphragm which manufactures both a vibration and infrasonic
`
`sound waves. Q After Judge Hupp granted China Healthways a preliminary
`
`injunction against East Health, East Health renamed its massager “SI WANG
`
`MACHINE,” after Simon Wang. I Wang Decl.,1] 10.7
`
`6 The parties agreed at oral argument that China Healthways’ massager is
`referred to as the INFRATONIC QGM, not the QGM INFRATONIC. Therefore,
`for the sake of clarity, the Court will refer to China Healthways’ massager as the
`INFRATONIC QGM.
`
`7 China Healthways objects to this paragraph of Wang’s declaration based
`on hearsay, relevance, speculation, etc. This objection is overruled.
`
`5
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B.
`
`Defendant Egg Health
`
`-3
`
`
`
`f.!
`
`;.
`-
`
`
`
`

`
`C.
`
`Def
`
`us
`
`S
`
`3 nd hi Animal Thera eutics
`
`Stoltz met Lee in August of 1992 and purchased an infrasonic therapeutic
`massager fromhim. III Stoltz Decl., at 2.’ In December 1992, Stoltz approached Lee I
`
`with the idea of selling the infrasonic therapeutic massagers to people in the equine
`
`market, as well as the general animal market. kl In 1992 or 1993, Lee and Stoltz
`
`began a business relationship whereby Stoltz acted as a distributor for Lee. III Lee
`
`Dec1., 11 6. In 1998, Stoltz became a sales representative for Lee where she received
`
`a commission for sales of massagers sold to the equine market.
`
`I_d., ‘[1 13. Around
`
`1998, Lee and Stoltz decided to change the name of the equine Inassagers to
`
`Equisonic QGM. Id., 1[ 14. On October 11, 2001, Lee sent Stoltz a letter which states
`
`that their agreement to do business together would terminate on October 25, 2001 if
`
`Stoltz did not sign anew distributor agreement with Lee. Stoltz Decl., at 9, Exh. 509,
`
`at 207. Stoltz did not sign the agreement.
`
`I_d. at 9-10. Stoltz began purchasing
`
`massagers from East Health afier October 11, 2001.
`
`I_d. at 10. Stoltz sells these
`
`massagers using the name Alphasonic. Id,
`
`D.
`
`Defendant Yuan Zhi Fu
`
`Fu was married to Lee, the President of China Healthways, until July 9, 1997.
`
`3 Susan Stoltz is also referred to in the parties’ papers as Susan
`Dowlatshahi; it appears that she changed her name to “Stoltz” at some point
`during this litigation. For the sake of clarity, the Court will refer this defendant as
`Susan Stoltz throughout this Order.
`'
`
`9 China Healthways objects to the entirety of Stoltz’s declaration because
`she wrote it in the third person. This objection is overruled.
`
`6
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`IV Fu Decl., 1] 6. As part of the divorce settlement, Lee was awarded the business
`
`known as China Healthways. 1_d, Fu was awarded the part of the business known as
`
`the Family Acupuncture Center. Id, After 1999, Lee incorporated his business under .
`the name China Healthways Institute. IV Lee Decl., 1| 2. Beginning in August 1999, I
`
`Lee and Fu had a dispute over whether Fu had a right to sell the massagers. IV Fu
`
`Decl.,1l 7. On February 17, 2000, Fu and Lee entered into a Conflict Resolution
`
`Agreement (“CRA”). IV Fu Decl.1] 8, Exh. C. The CRA provides, in relevant part,
`
` .)i....|"’xI‘H‘ll_L.'
`
`that:
`
`lt-T
`
`Yuan Zhi [Fu] agrees that the CHI logo is the exclusive property of
`
`Richard [Lee] and CH1, and she hereby gives up all claim to it.
`
`Richard is welcome to purchase products and services from Yuan Zhi’s
`
`companies at retail price unless discounted prices are offered. Yuan Zhi
`
`is welcome to purchase products from CHI at distributor prices, and can,
`
`as a customer, negotiate lower prices on bulk purchases ifboth CH1 and
`
`Yuan Zhi agree.
`
`No restrictions on the sales ofproducts or services, beyond those legally
`
`created such as trademark, copyright, and patent laws, shall apply to
`
`either Yuan Zhi or Richard. Specifically, [both are free to sell therapy
`
`devices imported from anywhere, including Shen Yun, except that
`
`Richard agrees not to provide acupuncture services in San Clemente.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2'7
`
`28
`
`

`
`E.
`
`Defendant Kanishka Lal
`
`In 1997, La] began selling East Health’s products. V Lal Decl., 1[ 3. Those .3
`
`products were on Lal’s website from its inception in 1997. _I_tL
`
`In December, 1998,
`
`China Healthways approached Lal and asked if he wanted to begin selling China
`
`Healthways’ products.
`
`_I_d_., 1[ 4. Lal sold China Healthways’ Infiatonic QGM
`
`massager. V Lee Decl., 1] 13. On September 11, 2002, Lee sent Lal an email that
`
`requested that Lal remove all CHI trademarks and copyrighted CHI photos and text
`
`from his website, www.natura1-1iving.com, and informed him that China Healthways
`
`was no longer selling its massager to web advertisers. V Lal’s Gen Issues, Exh. F.‘°
`
`On September 12, 2002, Lal sent Lee an email which stated that he had done as Lee
`
`requested in the earlier email. Id,
`
`F.
`
`General Procedural Histog
`
`On March 24, 2003, China Healthways filed its Second Amended Complaint
`
`(“SAC”) against various defendants.
`
`The Defendants against whom China
`
`Healthways has filed the pending summary judgment motions are Defendants Chi
`
`Animal Therapeutics (“Chi Animal”), Susan Stoltz (“Sto1tz”), East Health
`
`1° The exhibits to Lal’s Genuine Issues of Material Fact are not properly
`tabbed or numbered. The Court, therefore, will identify the exhibits as follows:
`Exhibit A is the first two pages of attachments. Exhibit B is the third page of
`attachments. Exhibit C is the fourth and fifth page of attachments. Exhibit D is
`the sixth page of attachments. Exhibit D is the seventh page of attachments.
`Exhibit E is the eighth and ninth page of attachments. Exhibit F is the tenth page
`of attachments. Exhibit G is the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth pages of
`attachments.
`
`:35
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1'7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
` I;-_»“.t-5i'v|CL‘
`
`1 Development Group, Inc. (“East Health”), Kanishka Lal (“Lal”) and Yuan Zhi Fu
`
`(“Flt”).
`
`China Healthways’ SAC alleges the following claims: Claim 1:
`
`false
`
`designation of origin—unfair competition under the Lanham Act, Claim 2: false
`
`designation of origin—false advertising under the Lanham Act, Claim 3: federal
`
`trademark dilution, Claim 4: federal copyright infiingement, Claim 5: California
`
`trademark infringement, Claim 6: California unfair competition and deceptive trade
`
`practices, and Claim 7: California trademark dilution.
`
`On March 10, 2003, East Health filed its Answer to China Healthways’ SAC.
`
`On May 20, 2002, Chi Animal, Stoltz, and East Health filed the following
`
`counterclaims against China Healthways: Counterclaim 1: false designation of
`
`origin—false advertising, Counterclaim 2: false advertising, Counterclaim 3: federal
`
`trademark dilution, Counterclaim4: California trademark infringement, Counterclaim
`
`5: California Unfair Competition and Deceptive Trademark Practices, and
`
`Counterclaim 6: California trademark dilution. East Health admitted in its answers
`
`to interrogatories that
`
`it was not maintaining a counterclaim for trademark
`
`infringement and that the claim of infringement “was asserted by others.” I Rirner
`
`Decl., Exh. 17, 283. The Court, therefore, assumes, that the trademark infringement
`
`claim was asserted solely by Stoltz and Chi Animal.
`
`On July 22, 2003, China Healthways filed a dismissal of its copyright claim
`
`based on the work entitled Infratonic QGM Line Drawing (Copyright Registration
`
`No. VA 1-123-731).
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`G.
`
`Prgliminaiy Injunctions
`
`
`
`-1
`. 1']
`
`On August 5, 2002, Judge HarryHupp enteredapreliminaryinjunction against .
`EastHealth and a separate preliminary injunction against Stoltz and Chi Animal. & I {I
`
`August 5, 2002 Minute Order. East Health’s preliminary injunction enjoined its use
`
`ofQ1 GONG MACHINE, Q1 GONG MASSAGER, and INFRASONIC. fi August
`
`5 , 2004 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant East Health Group,
`
`Inc. (“East Health PI”), at 2-3. The injunction against Stoltz and Chi Animal enjoined
`
`their use of CH1 (and design), CHAOS THERAPY (and design), INFRATONIC,
`
`QGM,
`
`INFRASONIC, QI GONG MACHINE, QI GONG MASSAGER,
`
`EQUISONIC, and EQUISONIC QGM. $9 August 5, 2002 Order Granting
`
`Preliminary Injunction Against Defendants Chi Animal Therapeutics, Inc. and Susan
`
`Dowlatshahi (“Stoltz/Chi Animal Pl”), at 2-3.
`
`H.
`
`Evidentiary Objections
`
`The parties have submitted evidentiary objections to the evidence. The Court
`
`will only address the objections to the evidence that the Court relies upon.
`
`HI. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court shall
`
`grant a motion for summary judgment if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
`
`interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
`
`there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
`
`to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those that
`
`10
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`
`
`.')L.I'*.t‘H'I.
`
`L)
`
`1 may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Libergty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`15
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`2 °
`
`2 1
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence
`
`for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. I_d.
`
`The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing
`
`the district court ofthe basis of the summary judgment motion and of demonstrating
`
`the absence ofa genuine issue ofmaterial fact for trial. ggglotex Qorp, v. Catrett, 477
`
`U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Katz 1. §;hilg1ren’s Hosp. of Orange County, 28 F.3d 1520,
`
`1534 (9th Cir. 1994). On an issue for which the nonmoving party has the burden of
`proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of
`
`evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Qelotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
`
`Once this initial burden is satisfied, the non-moving party is required to “go
`
`beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to
`
`interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate ‘specific facts’ showing that there
`
`is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (internal quotations omitted);
`
`see also Nilssgn, Bobbins, Dglgam, Berliner, §;_a_r§Qn & Wurst v. Louisiana Hydrolec,
`
`854 F.2d 1538, 1544 (9th Cir. 1988). Where the standard of proof at trial is
`
`preponderance of the evidence, the non-moving party’s evidence must be such that
`
`a “fair-mindedjury could return a verdict for the [non-moving party] on the evidence
`
`presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
`
`The court views all facts and draws all inferences therefrom in the light most
`
`favorable to the nonmoving party.
`
`llnited States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654,
`
`655(1962). The Court must accept the plaintifi’s view ofall material disputed facts.
`
`LaLonde v.
`
`o
`
`of
`
`iver ide, 204 F.3d 947, 954 (2000).
`
`If, however, the
`
`11
`
`

`
`nonmoving party's evidence is “merely co1orable” or “not significantly probative,” .
`
`summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`China Healthways seeks summary judgment on its claims against East Health,
`
`Stoltz, Fu, and Lal. China Healthways also seeks surmnary judgment on East
`
`Health’s counterclaims against China Healthways.
`
`East Health seeks summary judgment on China Healthways’ claims against
`
`East Health.
`
`As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that since China Healthways seeks
`
`summary judgment on all ofEast Health’s counterclaims against China Healthways,
`
`and East Health has only opposed its false advertising counterclaim against China
`
`Healthways in its motion, East Health concedes to China Healthways’ motion for
`
`summary judgment against it for the rest of East Hea1th’s counterclaims. Therefore,
`
`the Court grants China Healthways’ motion for summary judgment on East Hea1th’s
`
`counterclaims for federal trademark dilution and California Unfair Competition and
`
`Deceptive Trademark Practices.
`
`The Court will
`
`first address China Healthways’ claims for copyright
`
`infringement against East Health, Stoltz and Lal.
`
`The Court will then address China Healthways’ trademark infiingement and
`
`unfair competition under the Lanham Act claims against EastHea1th, Stoltz, Fu, and
`
`12
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`1 Lal.
`
`The Court will then address China Healthways’ claims for trademark dilution
`
`against East Health, Stoltz, Fu, and Lal.
`
`ELHNNEU
`
`The Court will then address China Healthways’ claim for false advertising
`
`against East Health, East Hea1th’s claim for false advertising against China
`
`Healthways, and China Healthways’ claims for false advertising against Stoltz, Fu,
`
`and La].
`
`The Court will
`
`then address China Healthways’ claims for state unfair
`
`competition against East Health, Stoltz, Fu, and La].
`
`Finally, the Court will address China Healthways’ civil conspiracy claim
`
`against Fu and China Healthways’ conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims against
`
`East Health.
`
`A.
`
`Copmght Infringement
`
`To establish copyright infiingement, the holder of the copyright must prove
`
`both valid ownership of the copyright and infiingement of that copyright by the
`
`alleged infringer. fig; gg._, North Coast Indus. v. Maxwell, 972 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th
`
`Cir. 1992); Sid & Magty Kroffi Television v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F .2d 1 157, 1 162
`
`(9th Cir. 1977). Ifthe plaintiffcopyright holder survives the first step by establishing
`
`that he or she owns a valid copyright, the plaintiff must then establish infringement
`
`by showing both access to the copyrighted material on the part ofthe alleged infringer
`
`13
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`and substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the alleged infringing
`
`work. North Coast, 972 F.2d at 1033. Under the copyright laws, the registration of
`
`a copyright certificate constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of a copyright
`
`in a judicial proceeding commenced within five years of the copyright‘s first
`
`publication. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); see also North Coast, 972 F.2d at 1033; Maggi
`
`Novelty, Inc. v. Unigue Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 663, 668 (3rd Cir. 1990); S.Q.§., Inc.
`
`I;5_.“‘»,l‘N\ll‘_‘U
`
`v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 1989).
`
`Infringement occurs when a defendant violates one of the exclusive rights of
`
`the copyright holder. 17 U.S.C. § 50l(a). A plaintiff can establish infiingement by
`
`demonstrating that a defendant used the copies in any ofthe ways described under 17
`
`U.S.C. § 106, which include: (1) reproduction of the copyrighted work, (2)
`
`preparation ofderivative works based upon the copyrighted work, (3) distribution of
`
`copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,
`
`or (4) display of the copyrighted work publicly. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
`
`1.
`
`China Healthways’ Claim Against East Health for Copyright
`
`Infringement ofthe Infratonic QGM Line Drawing
`
`East Health is seeking summary judgment on China Healthways’ copyright
`
`infringement claim based on East Health’s allegedly infringing use of the Infratonic
`
`QGM Line Drawing (“IQLD”). China Healthways filed a voluntary dismissal of its
`
`copyright claim based on this drawing on July 22, 2003.
`
`_S;C_ Plaintiffs Partial
`
`Dismissal of Copyright Claims. However, Bast Health filed its Answer to the SAC
`
`on March 10, 2003, three months before China Healthways’ dismissal.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`14
`
`

`
`Once an adverse party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment in
`
`an action, Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 4l(aX2) comes into play stating, “an action '
`shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s insistence save upon order of the court and
`upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper .
`.
`.” Fed. R. Civ. P. I
`
`I
`
`41(a)(2). Since East Health had already served its Answer on China Hcalthways
`
`before it filed his voluntary dismissal, the Court finds that China Hcalthways is not
`
`entitled to a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
`
`East Health argues that
`
`it
`
`is entitled to summary judgment on China
`
`Hcalthways’ claim for copyright
`
`infiingement on the IQLD because China
`
`Hcalthways is not the author of the copyrighted work and there is no work for hire
`
`agreement between the author ofthe copyrighted work and China Hcalthways. China
`
`Hcalthways concedes that it cannot maintain its copyright claim based on the IQLD
`
`but argues that China Hcalthways’ use of the IQLD supports its unfair competition
`
`claim against East Health.“ _S_e_e II Opp., 2. Since China Hcalthways concedes that
`
`it cannot maintain its copyright infringement claim based on the IQLD, the Court
`
`grants East Health’s summary judgment motion on China Hcalthways’ copyright
`
`infringement claim based on the IQLD.
`
`2.
`
`China Healthways’ Claim Against Stoltz for Copyright
`
`Infringement of the Chi Point Chart and Infratonic QGM
`
`Advertisement
`
`China Hcalthways argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on its
`
`11 The Court will address China Hcalthways’ unfair competition claim .
`based on East Health’s use of the IQLD in the section on state unfair competition.
`
`15
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2'7
`
`28
`
`

`
`1
`
`copyright claim against Stoltz based on her allegedly infringing use of China
`
`2 Healthways’ copyrighted works—the Chi Point Chart (“CPC”) and the Infratonic
`
`3 QGM Advertisement (“IQA”). Since China Healthways and Stoltz were working
`
`.3L.‘-".r‘lHEL1
`
`together until October 2001 and Stoltz had permission to use China Healthways’
`
`trademarks and materials until that point, any allegedly infringing use must have
`
`occurred after October 2001.
`
`‘In order to succeed on a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must
`
`show: (I) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) copying by the defendant of
`
`protectable elements ofthe work. CDN, Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9‘h Cir.
`
`1999). Permissive use of the copyright is a defense to copyright infringement.
`
`3.
`
`Infratonic QGM Advertisement
`
`China Healthways has a registered copyright in the IQA. _S;e_ III Rimer Decl.,
`
`Exh. 1 1. The image is ofthe massager, with the words “Chaos Therapy” on the front
`
`of the massager, and a person’s hand holding the head ofthe rnassager. 1;" The top
`
`left of the image states “Only $695.” I_d. China Healthways argues that Stoltz has
`
`infringed China Healthways’ IQA copyright based on a “printout” of Stoltz’s website
`
`www.equisonicqgm.com that has an image similar to the IQA image on it. HI Rimer
`
`1’ The copyrighted image is not very clear and therefore, these are the only
`aspects of the copyrighted image that the Court is able to discern. There is some
`text on the right of the image that is illegible except for the following words: “Try
`the Infratonic .
`.
`. Risk free for .
`.
`. Discover .
`.
`. yourself .
`.
`. therapy .
`.
`. our health
`...”gl_.
`
`16
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`
`.3'u.,.r'*'v.i'*‘£NEU
`
`1 Decl., Exh. 13, at 88.” China Healthways asserts that this is an image of the website
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`from February 22, 2002, however, the image itselfdoes not have an identifying date.
`
`III Rimer Decl., 1] 14, Exh. 13, 88. Rimer has filed a Reply Declaration which states
`
`that he downloaded this image from the website on February 22, 2002.
`
`III Rimer
`
`5 Reply Decl., 1] 4.
`6
`
`Stoltz declares that the printout of the website is a prototype for a website that
`
`Stoltz was working on while she was selling China Healthways’ machine. Gen.
`
`Issues, 1[ 24. Stoltz also objects because the “print-out” does not contain any headers
`
`1 o
`
`I_¢ The image states,
`or footers indicating that it was printed off of the Internet.
`11
`“Here’s a new look for you Susan ——what do you think? None of the top buttons
`12
`13 work yet——don’t want to get too carried away until I see ifyou like this design. Tracey
`14
`:—).” III Rimer Decl., Exh. 13, 88. It is clear from this text that this image could be
`
`15
`
`15
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`2 °
`2 1
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`25
`
`27
`
`2 3
`
`a prototype for a website that was being developed by Stoltz.
`
`The Court finds that Stoltz has raised a genuine issue of material fact whether
`
`this image was printed offher website from the Internet on February 22, 2002. Based
`
`on the foregoing, Stoltz has raised a genuine issue of material fact that she did not
`
`infringe China Healthways’ IQA copyright.
`
`*3 China Healthways also cites to the use of the IQA image in its own
`newsletter. III Rimer Decl., Exh. 31, 341. However, the use of the image in its
`own newsletter cannot be grounds for a copyright infringement claim against
`Stoltz.
`
`17
`
`

`
`b.
`
`Chi Point Chart
`
`China Healthways argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on its claim
`
`of copyright infringement against Stoltz for her use of its Chi Point Chart (“CPC”).
`
`China Healthways has a registered copyright in the CPC which was registered on
`
`January 24, 2002. IH Rirner Decl., Exh. 4.
`
`Dl..v"\l'~ll‘iL‘.-..:'
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1'7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2'7
`
`28
`
`In support ofits motion, China Healthways has submitted documents that were
`
`produced by Stoltz to China Healthways. III Rirner Decl., 1] 32, Exh. 31, 336 & 338.
`
`The CPC appears on two pages of these documents as part of a six-page instructional
`
`guide on the use of the “Infratonic.” I_d. However, China Healthways has not
`
`authenticated these documents in any way other than to state that Stoltz produced
`
`them to China Healthways. Also, the Court notes that Stoltz was not selling a
`
`massager called the Infratonic after January 2002. Therefore, it is unclear whether
`
`the documents were created or used by Stoltz and it is unclear if they were used after
`
`Stoltz’s working relationship with China Healthways ended.” Based on the lack of
`
`reliability and probative value of these documents, the Court does not rely on this
`
`evidence.
`
`China Healthways has also submitted promotional materials it received from
`
`1‘ China Healthways also argues that Stoltz admitted that she used the CPC
`image in her own marketing materials during her deposition. III Unc. Facts, 1] 73.
`However, in her deposition, Stoltz stated that she sent the point chart to people and
`that she felt that she was allowed to continue distributing it. III Rimer Decl., Exh.
`38, 899: 1 1-18. She did not state that she actually distributed the CPC to her
`customers after her working relationship with China Healthways ended. LCL
`Therefore, the Court finds this evidence irrelevant.
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`Stoltz when it ordered an Alphasonic massager from Stoltz in January 2002. E [H
`
`Lee Decl., 1] 27, Exh. 17. The materials include an image that appears to be identical
`
`to the CPC. L; at 100. The materials were sent after China Healthways revoked its
`
`3L..HNN’.:i..‘
`
`permission for Stoltz to use its materials

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket