Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA327273
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`01/15/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91187261
`Defendant
`Disney Enterprises, Inc.
`Mark E. Miller
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th FL
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`UNITED STATES
`markmiller@omm.com
`Motion to Consolidate
`Mark E. Miller
`markmiller@omm.com, jweader@omm.com, aechery@omm.com,
`smalek@omm.com
`/Mark E. Miller/
`01/15/2010
`Opposition 91187261 Motion to Consolidate.pdf ( 5 pages )(17561 bytes )
`Exhibit A to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf
`( 41 pages )(1935251 bytes )
`Exhibit B to Motion to Consolidate - SSI's Opp. to Disney's Motion for Summary
`Judgment.pdf ( 50 pages )(3114602 bytes )
`Exhibit C to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Reply in Support of Motion for
`Summary Judgment.pdf ( 32 pages )(1642004 bytes )
`Exhibit D to Motion to Consolidate - Order re Supplemental Briefing.pdf ( 3
`pages )(13884 bytes )
`Exhibit E to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Supplemental Opening Brief.pdf (
`31 pages )(179808 bytes )
`Exhibit F to Motion to Consolidate - SSI's Opposition to Disney's Supplemental
`Opening Brief.pdf ( 31 pages )(239159 bytes )
`Exhibit G to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Reply in Support of Supplemental
`Brief.pdf ( 27 pages )(135974 bytes )
`Exhibit H to Motion to Consolidate - Order Granting in Part Counter-Defendant's
`Motion for SJ.pdf ( 5 pages )(28288 bytes )
`Exhibit I to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Motion for Summary Disposition.pdf
`( 28 pages )(94275 bytes )
`Exhibit J to Motion to Consolidate - SSI's Opposition to Disney's Motion for
`Summary Disposition.pdf ( 34 pages )(125717 bytes )
`Exhibit K to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Reply in Support of Motion for
`Summary Disposition.pdf ( 31 pages )(125551 bytes )
`Exhibit L to Motoin to Consolidate - Order Granting Counter-Defendant's Motion
`for SJ et al.pdf ( 13 pages )(49936 bytes )
`Exhibit M to Motion to Consolidate - Final Judgment.pdf ( 4 pages )(22457 bytes
`
`)E
`
`xhibit N to Motion to Consolidate - Notice of Appeal by SSI.PDF ( 4 pages
`)(79421 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`STEPHEN SLESINGER, INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91187261
`
`Mark: POOH
`
`Application Nos. 77/189475,
`77/487303, 77/487298
`
`
`
`MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`OPPOSITION NOS. 91188860, 91187261, 91186026, 91179064, 91182358, 91183644,
`91191230, AND 91192691 AND CANCELLATION NO. 92046853
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s December 18, 2009 order indicated that
`
`consolidation may be appropriate. (Order at 5.) Consequently, Applicant Disney Enterprises,
`
`Inc. (“Disney”) hereby moves to consolidate the above-referenced opposition and cancellation
`
`proceedings pursuant to TBMP § 511 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
`
`All of the opposition and cancellation proceedings filed by Stephen Slesinger, Inc.
`
`(“SSI”) turn on the common legal issue of ownership of rights to trademarks derived from the
`
`Winnie the Pooh works (“Pooh Works”), and in particular whether a final judgment issued in a
`
`federal court action between the parties precludes SSI from relitigating this issue before the
`Board.1 In that federal court action, SSI filed trademark infringement claims against Disney
`alleging that SSI owned the rights to the Pooh Works. The United States District Court for the
`
`Central District of California ruled that “under the clear terms of the [SSI and Disney]
`
`agreements, SSI transferred all of its rights in the Pooh works to Disney” and SSI “retained no
`
`
`
`1 As requested in the Board’s December 18, 2009 order, Appendix 1 identifies and
`attaches relevant pleadings from the federal court action. (Order at 4-5.)
`
`SF1:785227.3
`
`

`
`
`
`rights.” (Ex. L at 8, 3 (emphases added).) Based on that ruling, the district court dismissed
`
`SSI’s claims and entered final judgment on October 7, 2009. (Ex. M.) Under the doctrine of
`
`collateral estoppel, the district court’s rulings are final and binding on SSI and Disney.
`
`Nonetheless, SSI wrongfully seeks to oppose and cancel Disney’s trademark registrations and
`
`applications covering the Pooh Works. Disney has moved to dismiss these proceedings on the
`
`ground that SSI is collaterally estopped from asserting that it owns rights in the Pooh Works – an
`
`issue that was “actually litigated” and “necessarily decided” in the federal court action. Because
`
`the opposition and cancellation proceedings are based on this common legal issue, consolidation
`
`is appropriate.
`
`II.
`
`CONSOLIDATION IS WARRANTED AND WILL AID THE BOARD’S
`CONSIDERATION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS
`“When cases involving common questions of law or fact are pending before the Board,
`
`the Board may order the consolidation of the cases.” TBMP § 511; see also FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`42(a). In considering whether consolidation is appropriate, the Board will consider the identity
`
`of parties, the similarity of marks, and whether consolidation would conserve resources and
`
`prevent unnecessary expense. See id.; World Hockey Ass’n v. Tudor Metal Prods. Corp., 185
`
`USPQ 246, 248 (1975) (holding consolidation appropriate because “opposer [had] in each
`
`instance challenged applicant’s right of registration on the basis of its ownership[.]”)
`
`All of the criteria for consolidation are present here. The parties are identical and the
`
`marks at issue all derive from the Pooh Works, the rights to which were addressed by the district
`
`court. (See Notice of Opposition (filed Oct. 31, 2008); compare Notices of Opposition in
`
`Oppositions No. 91188860, 91186026, 91179064, 91182358, 91183644, 91191230, and
`
`91192691 with Exs. L-N). The opposition and cancellation proceedings present a common issue
`
`of law: the ownership of rights to trademarks derived from the Pooh Works, and whether the
`
`district court’s final judgment determining that Disney owns all of the rights in the Pooh
`
`
`
`
`
`SF1:785227.3
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Works—and that SSI owns no rights in the Pooh Works—has collateral estoppel effect.2
`Because all of the proceedings turn on the same legal issue, the pleadings filed by both parties in
`
`the various proceedings are nearly identical. (See Disney’s Notice of Final Determination in a
`
`Civil Action (filed Oct. 8, 2009); SSI’s Response (filed Oct. 29, 2009); and Disney’s Reply (filed
`
`Nov. 18, 2009).) These circumstances make consolidation particularly appropriate. See S.
`
`Indus., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1293, * 6 (TTAB 1997).
`III. CONCLUSION
`It is beyond question that consolidation will avoid further duplication of effort and ensure
`
`consistency. Because the opposition and cancellation proceedings turn on a common question of
`
`law, involve identical parties, and implicate related marks, Disney respectfully requests that the
`
`Board consolidate these proceedings.
`
`Dated: January 15, 2010
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Mark E. Miller
`Mark E. Miller (Reg. No. 31,401)
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Phone: 415.984.8700
`Fax: 415.984.8701
`Email: markmiller@omm.com
` Attorneys for Disney Enterprises, Inc.
`
`
`
`2 That SSI has appealed the district court’s order does not change the preclusive effect of
`those rulings. “[T]he preclusive effects of a lower court judgment cannot be suspended simply
`by taking an appeal that remains undecided.” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 327 (9th
`Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). In applying Eleventh Circuit law, the Federal Circuit has
`stated that “for purposes of issue preclusion[,] ‘final judgment’ includes any prior adjudication of
`an issue in another action that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive
`effect.” Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`The D.C. Circuit has stated that “[i]t is well established that a lower court judgment may have
`preclusive effect despite the lack of appellate review.” Martin v. Dep’t of Justice, 488 F.3d 446,
`455 (D.C. Cir. 2007). And the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 states that “[A]
`judgment otherwise final remains so despite the taking of an appeal.”
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`SF1:785227.3
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`J
`
`K
`
`L
`
`M
`
`N
`
`APPENDIX 1
`
`Document
`
`Disney’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`SSI’s Opposition to Disney’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Disney’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Order re: Supplemental Briefing
`
`Disney’s Supplemental Opening Brief
`
`SSI’s Opposition to Disney’s Supplemental Opening Brief
`
`Disney’s Reply in Support of Supplemental Brief
`
`Order Granting in Part Counter-Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`Judgment
`
`Disney’s Motion for Summary Disposition
`
`SSI’s Opposition to Disney’s Motion for Summary Disposition
`
`Disney’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition
`
`Order Granting Counter-Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and
`Order Denying Counter-Claimant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication
`
`Final Judgment
`
`Notice of Appeal by SSI
`
`Date
`
`4.21.08
`
`5.12.08
`
`5.27.08
`
`6.3.08
`
`6.30.08
`
`7.28.08
`
`8.11.08
`
`5.19.09
`
`7.6.09
`
`8.11.09
`
`8.31.09
`
`9.25.09
`
`10.7.09
`
`11.5.09
`
`
`
`
`
`SF1:785227.3
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Motion
`
`to Consolidate with exhibits has been served upon counsel for Opposer by mailing said copy via
`
`First Class mail on this January 15, 2010, to the following address:
`
`Andrew D. Skale, Esq.
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovksy and Popeo, PC
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`
`
` /s/ Alexandra Echery
`Alexandra Echery
`
`
`
`SF1:785227.3
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 1 of 40
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 1 of 40
`Cfinse 2:02—cv—08508—FMC—PLA Document 396
`
`DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (SB. #97802)
`d etrocelli ommcom
`A AN RAD R(S.B.#45789)
`arader
`omm.cor11
`VICTO JIH(S.B.#1865]5)
`6iih%>mm.com
`I ST M. GOLDSTEIN (3.13. #%98858)
`6' oldstein omm.com
`ELVE Y & MYERS LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Fioor
`A
`es %%%625%%35
`Fae-sI)miIe:
`ISIOI 246-6779
`
`~
`
`e e
`
`one:
`
`Attorne s for Counter—Defendants
`INC, THE WALT
`DISNE ENTERPRISES,
`DISNEY COMPANY, AND WALT DISNEY
`PRODUCTIONS
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. CV—02~08508 FMC (PLAX)
`
`I
`
`E I
`
`COUNTER-DEFENDANTS DISNEY
`ENTERPRISES, INC., THE WALT
`DISNEY COMPANY, AND WALT
`DISNEY PRODUCTIONS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF _
`COUNTER-CLAIMANT STEPHEN
`SLESINGER, INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`The Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper
`
`Date:
`Tune:
`Place:
`
`June 9, 2008
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 750
`
`CLARE MILNE, an individual, by
`and throu h MICHAEL JOSEPH
`COYNE, Ixer RECEIVER, and
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`STEPHEN SLESINGER, INC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`STEPHEN SLESINGER, INC.,
`
`Counte'r—CIaimant,
`
`V.
`
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.;
`THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY;
`and WALT DISNEY
`PRODUCTIONS,
`
`Counter—Defendants.
`
`II
`
`14
`
`"I5
`
`16
`
`y--A KC
`
`20
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`28
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 2 of 40
`Case 2:02—cv—08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 2 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION. ........................................................................................ ..l
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW ......................................... ..2
`
`.
`
`.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The State Court Action——SSI’s Claims. ............................................. ..2 :
`
`The State Court Action———SSI’s Misconduct....................................... ..3 E
`
`The Litigation in this Court................................................................. ..5
`
`SSI’s Remaining Counterclairns. ........................................................ ..6 E
`
`Summary Disposition is Appropriate .................................................. .. 7
`
`III.
`
`SS_I’S FOURTH THROUGH SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIMS
`ALLEGE CONTRACTBASED CLAIMS THAT ARE BARRED BY
`THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT ............................................................. .. 8
`
`A.
`
`Res Jtidicata Bars Ali of SSI’s Contract-Based Claims ...................... ..9 .
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`There Was a Final Judgment on the Merits Against SSI ........ .. 10 3
`
`SSI’s Ciaims Here Mirror Exactly Its State Court Claims ..... .. H
`
`B.
`
`Coiiateral Estoppel Also Independently Bars SSI from Reviving
`Issues Raised in the Terminated State Court Action. .................... ..'...2l
`
`3
`’
`
`IV.
`
`SSI’S_ COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, AND TRADE DRESS
`CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT SSI
`GRANTED ALL OF ITS RIGHTS TO DISNEY. ..................................... ..23 '
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`SSI Conveyed All of Its Rights in the Pooh Works to Disney. ........ ..23 Ei
`
`SSI _is Estopped From Disputing Its Prior "Position That It
`Assigned AI Rights. ......................................................................... ..25
`
`SS1 IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DECLARATTON THAT IT IS THE
`OWNER OF DISNEY’S REGISTERED TRADEMARKS TO THE
`POOH WORKS. .......................................................................................... ..29
`
`SSI’S CLAIM THAT DISNEY “ORCHESTRATED” A SCHEME TO
`TERMINATE ITS INTEREST IN THE POOH WORKS FAILS AS A
`MATTER OF LAW. ................................................................................... ..3i
`
`.
`'
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION. .......................................................................................... ..3-4
`
`y_...A
`
`EKOOO--JON‘-1'1-ifibétx)
`
`II
`
`>-—--- DJ
`
`i—I -5
`
`I6
`
`18
`
`I9
`
`20
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 3 of 40
`Case 2:02—cv—08508—FMC-PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 3 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc,
`239 F.3d 1004 (9th C11‘. 2001) .......................................................................... ..23 '
`
`Alpha Meclz., Hearing & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. Am,
`133 Cal. App. 4th 1319 (2005) ................................................. H1}, 20, 21, 22, 23
`
`3
`
`Anderson v. LibertI‘y Lobby, Inc,
`477 US. 242 ( 986) ............................................................................................ ..7
`
`APL Co. Pte. Ltd. v. UK Aerosols Ltd, Inc,
`2007 WL 3225469 *6 (ND. Ca}. Oct. 30, 2007) ............................................. .28 ‘
`
`=
`Astor Chaucfgeured Lim. Co. v. Runnfeldz‘ Inv. Corp,
`910 F2 1540 (7th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... ..29 E
`
`_.
`Barnes 12. Owens~Corning Fiberglass Corp,
`201 F.3d 815 (6th CH. 2000) ............................................................................ ..27 ‘
`Bourne Co. v. MPL Commons, Inc,
`E
`675 F. Supp. 859 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ................................................................... ..33
`
`Britten v. Co—O Bankin Group,
`4 F.3d 742
`th Cir. 1 93) ................................................................................ ..27
`
`Come ie 12. Household Intern, Inc,
`37 F.3d 656 (7th Cir.2004) ...................................................................... .28, 29
`
`Celotex v. Catreiz‘
`477 US. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................ ..7 A
`
`Coca-Cola C0. V. Pepsi-—Cola C0,,
`500 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (ND. Ga. 2007) ............................................................. ..27
`
`Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp,
`845 F.2d 851 (9th CH. 1988) ............................................................................ ..25 .
`
`Contra Mulrimin USA, Inc. v. Walco Intern, Inc,
`2007 WL 1686511, *3 (ND Tex.Jur1. 8, 2007) .............................................. ..30
`
`1
`
`del Cam o v. Kennedg,
`491
`. Supp. 2d 8 1 (ND. Cal. 2006) .............................................................. .. 10 '
`Edwin K. Williams & Co. v. Edwin K. Williams & C0.—EasI,
`3
`377 F. Supp. 418 (CD. Cal. i974) ................................................................... ..30
`
`Essex Music, Inc. v. ABKCO Music & Records, Inc,
`743 F. Supp. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................................................................... ..29
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 4 of 40
`Case 2:02-CV-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 4 of 40
`
`y._A
`
`g\DO0\]O‘\U\-D-UJFJ
`
`3::
`
`)_a
`
`»—A R.)
`
`s—- DJ
`
`14
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(continued)
`
`Franklin Capital Corp. 12. Wilson,
`148 Ca}. App. 4th 187 (2007) ........................................................................... ..1o
`
`Gottlieb v. Kesr,
`141Ca1.App.4th1}0(2006) ..................................................................... ..21,22
`
`Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) ...................................................................................... ..32
`Hall V. GE Plastic Pac._PTE, L2‘al.,
`327 F.3d 391 (5th C11". 2003) ...................................................................... .27, 28
`
`Hamilton 12. State Farrn.Fire and Cas. Ca,
`270 F.3d778 (9th C11". 2001) ............................................................................ ..28 .
`
`Hammond Packin% Co. v. Arkansas,
`212 U.S. 322 ( 909) .......................................................................................... .22
`
`3
`
`ICEE Distrlbs. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp,
`325 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ ..30 9
`
`In re Enron Cor .,
`349 BR. 96 Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) ............................................................... ..27
`
`_
`In re Palmer,
`207 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ .22 E
`
`Johnson v. Ore on
`141 F.3d 13 1 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... as
`
`Kahn V. Kahn,
`68 Cal. App. 3d 372 (1977) ............................................................ ..10,11,21,22 2
`
`Kale v. Olmchowski
`985 F.2d 360 (7th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ ..27
`
`Kay 1». Cir ofRancho Palos Verdes,
`504 F. d 803 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ ..8, 22
`
`Krenzer 12. Chemical Const. Corp,
`456 US. 461 (1982) ............................................................................................ ..8
`
`Le Parc Cmty. Ass ’n v. Workers’ Comp. App. Bel,
`110 Ca1.App.4th1161 (2003) ......................................................................... ..10
`
`Legfg v. Mm‘. Ben. Health & Accident Ass ’n,
`84 Cal. App. 2d 482 (1960) ............................................................................ ..12
`
`=
`
`.
`
`-
`
`E
`Mal ack Procls, Inc. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp,
`0 U.S.P.Q.2d 1959 (CD. C31. 1994) .............................................................. ..25 E
`i
`
`~iii—
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 5 of 40
`Cqlse 2:02—cv—08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 5 of 40
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(continued)
`
`3 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp,
`4
`475 US. 574 (1986)..............................................................................................7
`McDowell v. Watson,
`59 Cal. App. 4111 1155 (1997) ........................................................................... ..34
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`Mez%)2 v. State ofCal,
`1
`1 C211. App. 3d 1060 (1984) ............................................................................12
`Migra 12. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc,
`465 US. 75 (1984) .............................................................................................. ..8
`
`9 Milne v. Ste hen Slesin er, Ina,
`430 17.3
`1036 (9th 11. 2005) .......................................................................... ..30
`
`10
`
`Montere Plaza Hotel Ltd. Psh . v. Local 483 of the Hotel Employees Union,
`215 .3d 923 (91:11 Car. 200
`...................................................................... ..'10, 11
`11
`12 Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto C0,,
`3
`28 C211. 4th 888 (2002) ..............................................................................9, 10, 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`I
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`‘
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`New Hampshire 12. Maine,
`532 11.8. 742 (2001) .......................................................................................... ..27
`
`New W. Corp. V. NYM Co. 0 Cal, Inc,
`595 F.2d 1194(9t1'1 C11‘. 979) .......................................................................... ..23
`
`Newsome V. Lee Coangy,
`431 F. Supp. 2d 11 9 (MD. A13. 2006) .................
`
`........................................ ..27
`
`Olsen 12. Breeze, Inc.,
`48 Cal. App. 4111 608 (1996) ............................................................................. ..11
`1
`Racine & Laramie v. Dep ’t ofParks & Rec. ,
`11 Cal. App. 4th 1026 (1 92) ........................................................................... ..32 .
`
`Smith 12. Los Angeles,
`
`190 Ca1.App.2d112(1961) ..............................................................................12 E
`
`'
`Smith v. State Farm Matt. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`93 C31. App. 4111 700 (2001) ............................................................................. ..33 E
`
`Stephen Slesinger, Inc. 12. Walt Disney Co,
`155 Cal. App. 4111 736 (2007) ......................................................................... ..4, 5 1
`
`1
`Torrey Pines Bank v. Staoer. Ct. ,
`216 Cal. App. 3d 81
`(1989) ................................................................ ..21,22, 23 1
`
`United States v. Dahan,
`
`369 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (C1). C211. 2005) ................................................................7
`
`_;V_
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 6 of 40
`Care 2:02—cv—08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 6 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(continued)
`
`United States v. King Features Entm ’I, Inc,
`843 F.2d 394 (91: Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ ..23
`
`We: next v. Pro ’I Eng’rs in Cal. Gov ’t,
`54 F.3d 1 36 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... ..28
`
`Wetkel v. TCWRealty Fund 1] Holding Ca,
`55 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (1997) ............................................................................. ..9
`
`‘
`Yozmt v_. /Ic:u}gR0se—O ryland,
`103 F.3d 30 (9th
`1;. 1996) ...................................................................... .24, 31
`
`Zita, Inc. v. Tirmell,
`502 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... ..31
`
`STATUTES
`
`%
`
`’
`
`g
`
`15 USC. § 1125(a) ............................................................................................... ..23 3
`17 U.S.C. § 304 ...................................................................................... ..2, 19, 33, 34
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 106-22, 501(a) ............................................................................ ..23, 31
`
`CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § £7200 ............................................................. ..32, 33, 34
`
`RULES '
`
`FED. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ................................................................................................ ..7
`
`FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(A) .................................................................................... ..26
`
`TREATISES
`
`3 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 18.64 (2008) ............. ..31
`
`_
`3 MELVILLE B. NEMMER & DAWO NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYR1GHT
`§§ 10.03, 10.}0[B] n.1.3 (2005) ................................................................. ..25,31_ ‘
`
`3 ROGER. M. MILGRAM, MILGRAM ON LICENSENG § 28.22 (2007) ......................... .. 31
`
`61 Cal. fur. 3d UNFATR COMPETITION‘ § 3 (2008) .................................................. ..33
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 7 of 40
`Ca .. 2:02—cv—08508—FMC—PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 7 of 40
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`The California courts minced no words. SS'I’s state court case against
`
`Disney was terminated for a “portrait of litigation misconduct ran riot,” so
`
`“breathtaking” that Disney could never receive a fair trial on SSI’s claims. In
`
`dismissing SSl’s entire case with prej utdice, the trial court found, and the Court of
`
`Appeal unanimously affirmed, that SSI_’s principals “tampered with the
`administration ofjustice” through perjury, forgery, fraud on the court, Violations of i
`
`court orders, misrepresentations to the court and Disney, burgiary, theft, criminal
`
`trespass, and more. The trial court condemned SSi’s contempt for the judicial
`
`process in the strongest terms: “SS1 is dishonest and shows no remorse.”
`
`SS1 now seeks refuge in this Court. Nothing has changed but the courthouse.
`
`.
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 l
`
`2
`
`Because a terminating sanction is “on the 1ner_its,” res judicata and collateral
`
`l l l
`
`estoppel conclusively bar SS1 from reasserting any ciaim or issue that was or conid
`
`have been litigated in its state action against Disney. There is a near-perfect overlap
`
`between the claims SSI lost in the state case and its claims in this casemvividly
`
`documented by the wholesale word-for-word copying of SSI’s state court
`
`aliegations in the original version of its amended federal counterclairns.
`
`Neither copyright nor trademark law rescues SSl’s claims. In repeated,
`
`expiicit, and binding admissions, SS1 represented to Disney and the state court that
`
`it “assign[ed], grant[ed] and set[] over unto Disney” the “sole and exclusive right”
`to the Winnie the Pooh works. After maintaining this position for 16 years in the
`
`E
`
`state court, SS1 now tells this Court something different——that it did not convey all
`of its interest to Disney, but retained an “ownership interest" in the Pooh works that E
`
`Disney is infringing by exploiting them without permission. Principles ofjudicial
`
`estoppel——not to mention the plain language of SS'I’s grant of rights to Disneyww
`
`flatly forbid SSI’s obvious effort to manufacture federal infringement claims in
`
`defiance of contrary representations and sworn admissions in the state court.
`
`;
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`S15
`
`16
`
`I7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- l -
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSlTl0N
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 8 of 40
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 8 of 40
`Cflse 2:02—cv—08508—FMC—PLA Document 396
`
`,.._a
`
`5©O0-~‘lO\LJ’a-l>UJl\J
`
`p.—u
`
`;._a
`
`>—t F0
`
`>-—~ DJ
`
`>---«----- 43-
`
`a-A U1
`
`>--I ON
`
`\-----A “xi
`
`r-A O0
`
`>--A \O
`
`l\) O
`
`l\3 a——4
`
`22
`
`Nor is there any remotely cognizable claim based on SSl’s allegation that
`
`Disney “orchestrated” the attempted invocation by the Milne and Shepard heirs of
`
`the copyright termination rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 304(d). This Court
`
`invalidated the termination notices, rendering it impossible for SSI to allege facts
`
`necessary to state a claim for copyright infringement, breach of contract, or unfair
`
`business practices.
`
`If.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW.
`
`A.
`
`The State Court Action---SSI’s Claims.
`
`In February 1991, SS1 filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging
`that Disney had breached the 1983 Agreement. SSl’s initial compiaint claimed that 7
`
`Disney had not accurately accounted for revenue received from exploitation of the
`
`Winnie the Pooh works (“Pooh Works”) and that Disney was not paying royalties
`
`based on videocassette sales. (Ex. 5.) Over the next decade, SS1 progressively and E
`
`dramatically expanded the scope of its claims, asserting numerous new theories for
`liability based on the i983 Agreement. SSI’s final state court pleading, the
`Supplemented Third Amended Complaint (“STAC”), alleged that Disney was
`
`9
`
`obligated to pay royalties for virtually every conceivable use of the Pooh Works.
`
`(Ex. 6.) it also alleged that Disney was not accurately paying royalties on uses of
`
`the Pooh Works that both parties agreed were royalty-«bearing.
`
`(1d.) Disney
`
`vigorously disputed these allegations: SSI’s expansive claims ranged far beyond
`
`the limited rights SSE actually received from Milne in the original l930 grant and
`
`then assigned to Disney in 1961 and again in 1983; and SSl’s asserted
`
`methodologies for calculating royalties were inconsistent with the 1983 Agreement
`
`and designed only to yield unconscionable windfalls to SS1.
`
`The parties engaged in years of discovery, including l2l deposition sessions,
`
`nearly 500 requests for admissions, over 1,000 document demands, 15 sets of form
`interrogatories, and close to 2,000 special interrogatories. The trial court appointed E
`
`a discovery referee, the late California Supreme Court Justice David Eagleson, to
`
`— 2 —
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DlSPOSlTlON
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 9 of 40
`Caflse 2:02—cv—08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 9 of 40
`
`l\.)
`
`\DOO'-~.lO\KJ1—¥-‘-aL.».)
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`l2
`
`i3
`
`14
`
`l5
`
`l6
`
`l7
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`preside over all discovery proceedings. Justice Eagleson issued 50 reports and
`
`recommendations on various discovery issues. He also served as one of two
`
`referees appointed to rule on specified accounting issues. The parties filed and
`
`litigated numerous substantive motions to the trial court, including summary
`
`adjudication motions. Appellate review was pursued on a number of rulings. The
`
`case was one of the longest-running civil actions in California history. SS1 changed
`
`counsel of record no fewer than if) times.
`
`B.
`
`The State Court Action“-—SSI’s Misconduct.
`
`in 2002, the details of serious misconduct by SS1 in conducting the litigation
`
`began to come to light. By 2004, after compiling irrefutable evidence of systematic
`illegal and fraudulent activities by SS1, Disney moved for a terminating sanction.
`The motion was presented to Judge Charles McCoy during a five-day evidentiaiy
`
`hearing. SSl’s principal Pati Slesinger, her husband David Bentson, and their
`private investigator Terry Sands were called to testify. So, too, were two
`individuals who helped carry out SSl’s illegal activities: convicted felons Dale
`
`Holman, Sr. and his son Dale Holman, Jr., who as a l2-year~oid boy served as a
`
`i
`
`2
`
`lookout during SSl’s illegal document thefts. Disney also called one of the nation’s i
`
`leading forensic document examiners, who presented startling evidence of SSl’s
`
`document fabrication and alteration. Disney presented detailed documentary proof
`
`of false testimony by SSl’s principals, false verifications of discovery responses,
`
`and false and fraudulent representations to the court. The raw, ugly facts revealed. a
`
`depth of deceit rarely—«if ever—~Witnessed in litigation.
`
`On March 29, 2004, Judge McCoy issued a 28—page Statement of Decision
`
`dismissing SSl’s case in its entirely with prejudice. (Ex. 8; Ex. SA.) The court
`
`decisively found that SS1 had “tampered with the administration ofjustice and
`
`threatened the integrity of the judicial process” by, among other illicit actions,
`
`stealing documents from Disney, altering documents in discovery to conceal their
`
`privileged and confidential nature, lying in interrogatory responses, depositions,
`
`5
`
`i
`
`-3-
`
`l\/lOTiOl‘~l FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
`
`

`
`Case 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 10 of 40
`Filed 04/21/2008
`Page 10 of 40
`Casie 2:02—cv—08508—FMC—PLA Document 396
`
`and court testimony to cover up its fraudulent and criminal activities, and defying
`
`discovery obligations and court orders. Especially important to the present motion,
`the trial court found that “the full sweep” of SSI’s misconduct can never be known,
`
`I
`
`and that “SS1 cannot give any sort of satisfactory accounting” of what it stole and
`
`the privileged information it improperly obtained.
`
`(Id. at 2.) SS1 admitted taking
`
`Disney documents Without creating a record of their numbers or contents. Based on
`
`“[d]eceptions surrounding SSI’s piecemeal and grudging production of Disney
`
`docurnents,” the court found that “SS1 likely still possesses additional Disney
`
`1nateria1.”1 (Ial)
`
`All this and more led the trial court to emphatically conclude it was
`
`impossible for Disney to