throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA994045
`08/09/2019
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91217913
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Inderjit Kaur Puri
`
`SURJIT P SONI
`THE SONI LAW FIRM
`116 SOUTH EUCLID AVE
`PASADENA, CA 91101-1856
`UNITED STATES
`surj@sonilaw.com, mike@sonilaw.com, cassandra@sonilaw.com
`626-683-7600
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Michael A. Long
`
`mike@sonilaw.com, surj@sonilaw.com, cassandra@sonilaw.com
`
`/michael a. long/
`
`08/09/2019
`
`180702 DN 31 Appellants Opening Brief - 17-35542.pdf(489351 bytes )
`180904 DN 39 Appellees Brief - 17-35542.pdf(434964 bytes )
`180904 DN 40 Supp Excerpts of Record - 17-35542.pdf(3083760 bytes )
`181025 DN 46-2 Reply Brief 17-35542.pdf(425693 bytes )
`190605 Argued and Submitted notice - 17-35542.pdf(35823 bytes )
`190610 Filed Audio recording of oral argument - 17-35542.pdf(36722 bytes )
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 1 of 76
`
`Appeal No. 17-35542
`______________________________________________
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`_______________________________________________
`
`GOLDEN TEMPLE OF OREGON, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company,
`Plaintiff – Appellee
`
`vs.
`
`BIBIJI INDERJIT KAUR PURI
`Defendant – Appellant,
`
`and
`
`SOPURKH KAUR KHALSA, Co-Trustee of the Yogi Bhajan
`Administrative Trust; et al., Defendants.
`____________________________________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
`Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-01358-HZ, Hon. Marco A. Hernández, Judge
`_____________________________________
`
`APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
`
`LOREN S. SCOTT OSB #024502
`Email: lscott@scott-law- group.com
`THE SCOTT LAW GROUP
`2350 Oakmont Way, Suite 106
`Eugene, OR 97401
`Telephone: 541-868-8005
`Facsimile: 541-868-8004
`
`SURJIT P. SONI, Cal. Bar #127419
`Email: surj@sonilaw.com
`LEO E. LUNDBERG, JR., Cal. Bar
`#125951
`Email: leo@sonilaw.com
`THE SONI LAW FIRM
`116 South Euclid Avenue
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`Telephone: 626-683-7600
`Facsimile: 626-683-1199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant
`1
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 2 of 76
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................12
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................16
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....................................................................17
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...............................................................18
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................22
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................27
`
`A. The Arbitrators’ Award Did Not Resolve All Issues Submitted And Is
`
`Therefore Not “Final” .......................................................................27
`
`B. Remand Based On Post-Arbitration Events Was Error......................30
`
`C. The Trustees, As A Mere Co-Owner, Lacked Authority To Grant
`
`The Exclusive License ......................................................................31
`
`D. The Arbitrators Had No Authority To Issue An Award Determining
`
`The Rights Of Non-Parties To The Arbitration .................................31
`
`E. Bibiji Is The Only Prevailing Party Under Oregon Law....................32
`
`VII.
`
`STANDARDS OF REVIEW ..................................................................33
`
`VIII. ARGUMENT..........................................................................................35
`
`2
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 3 of 76
`
`A. The District Court Erred In Confirming The Final Award On Second
`
`Remand Because The Award Was Not “Final And Definite” In That
`
`Worldwide Rights Had Not Been Decided........................................35
`
`1. ASP Rules, the FAA and Case Law Requires Arbitrators to
`
`Decide All Issues Raised By The Demand for Arbitration ................35
`
`2. Bibiji’s Statement Of Claim Sought Adjudication Of Ownership,
`
`And Assignment Of, All Marks Associated With Yogi Bhajan,
`
`Including Foreign Marks, Product Marks, Trade Dress, SKUs And
`
`Bar Codes .........................................................................................36
`
`3. Foreign And Product Marks Are Yogi Related Because They
`
`Were Used By Or Identify Yogi Bhajan............................................43
`
`4. The Intellectual Property Bibiji Seeks To Have Returned Is All
`
`YOGI –Related .................................................................................47
`
`5. Personal Jurisdiction Over KIT B.V. And Yogi Tea GmbH is Not
`
`Required ...........................................................................................47
`
`6. The Arbitrators Had Authority To Order Assignment Of
`
`Trademarks And Trademark Applications Held By KIT B.V. And
`
`Yogi Tea GmbH Even Though They Are Not Signatories ................51
`
`7. The Arbitrators Heard Sufficient Evidence of the Ownership Of
`
`Foreign Trademarks to Render the Award Bibiji Seeks.....................55
`
`3
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 4 of 76
`
`8. The Final Award After Second Remand is Not “Final” and the
`
`Panel Is Not Functus Officio .............................................................56
`
`B. The District Court Erred In Remanding The Injunction And Damages
`
`Portion Of The Award For Reconsideration......................................57
`
`C. The District Court Erred In Confirming The Arbitration Award On
`
`Remand Because The Arbitrators Exceeded Their Powers In Giving
`
`Effect To The ILA As Co-Owners Of Intellectual Property Cannot
`
`Grant An Exclusive License ..............................................................59
`
`D. The District Court Erred In Confirming The Final Second Award On
`
`Remand Because The Trustees Were Not Parties To The Arbitration
`
`And EWTC Has No Right To Pursue The Interests Of Third Parties 61
`
`1. Arbitrators Have No Authority To Issue An Award Affecting
`
`Rights Of A Non-Party To The Arbitration.......................................61
`
`2.EWTC Had No Standing To Argue The Equities Of The Trustees.63
`
`3. Neither the Lanham Act Nor the Trademark Manual of
`
`Examination Procedure Require a Trademark Registration or
`
`Application Be in the Name of All Joint Owners ..............................64
`
`4
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 5 of 76
`
`E. The District Court Erred By Confirming The Final Award On Second
`
`Remand Because The Arbitrators Exceeded Their Powers By
`
`Awarding Attorney Fees To EWTC...................................................65
`
`1. Bibiji, Not EWTC, Is Entitled To An Award Of Attorney Fees
`
`Because She Is The Only Prevailing Party Under The License And
`
`The Only Prevailing Party On Any “Claim” In The Arbitration.........65
`
`a) Any Right To Attorney Fees Must Necessarily Be Based On
`The 2004 License Which Contains The Language Necessary For
`Such An Award ............................................................................65
`
`b) Bibiji Is The Only Prevailing Party ........................................66
`
`c) EWTC’s Success In Amending Bibiji’s Remedies Does Not
`Make EWTC A Prevailing Party Because It Did Not Prevail On
`Any “Claims” ...............................................................................68
`
`2. Bibiji Is Entitled To Her Fees And Costs Incurred In Connection
`
`With Confirmation Proceedings.........................................................72
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION.......................................................................................73
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
`
`5
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 6 of 76
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`16TH Grp., LLC v. Lynch Mech. Const., LLC, 265 Or. App. 217, 221, 334 P.3d
`
`988, 991 (2014).................................................................................................68
`
`A/S Ganger Rolf v. Zeeland Transportation Ltd., 191 F.Supp. 359, 363
`
`(S.D.N.Y.1961).................................................................................................63
`
`Abbott v. Bob’s U–Drive et al, 222 Or. 147, 161–62, 352 P.2d 598 (1960) ...........51
`
`Amfac Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp., 294 Or. 94, 105-06, 654 P.2d
`
`1092, 1100 (1982).............................................................................................51
`
`Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 631, 129 S. Ct. 1896, 1902, 173 L.
`
`Ed. 2d 832, (2009) ............................................................................................52
`
`Anderson v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist. No. 6, 746 F.2d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 1984) ........58
`
`Barinaga v Cox, No. 05-1432 HU, 2007 WL 184687 .....................................36, 47
`
`Beggs v. Hart, 221 Or. App. 528, 537-38, 191 P.3d 747, 752 (2008) ....................68
`
`Bell Aerospace Company Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, 356 F.Supp. 354,
`
`356 (W.D.N.Y.1973), rev’d on other grounds, 500 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.1974). .....35
`
`Brescia Construction Co. v. Walart Construction Co., 238 App.Div. 45, 263
`
`N.Y.S. 13 (1st Dep’t 1933) ...............................................................................63
`
`6
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 7 of 76
`
`Bridgetown Trucking, Inc. v. Acatech Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00236-SI, 2016
`
`WL 3411552 .....................................................................................................53
`
`Burggraf v. Brocha, 74 Or. 381, 385, 145 P. 639, 641 (1915) ...............................69
`
`Carte Blanche (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Diners Club Int’l, Inc., 2 F.3d 24, 26 (2d
`
`Cir.1993 ............................................................................................................53
`
`City of New York v. Tavern on the Green LP, 427 B.R. 233, 243, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1519, 1525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .............................................................................55
`
`Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Omaha Indem. Co., 943 F.2d 327, 332 (3d Cir.1991) ...58
`
`Comedy Club, Inc., v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1286–88 (9th Cir.2009)
`
`..........................................................................................................................62
`
`Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006)...................................53
`
`Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, 336 F.3d 1128, 1132–33 (9th Cir.2003) .......34
`
`Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2007) ....................................................61
`
`Dighello v. Busconi, 673 F.Supp. 85, 90 (D.Conn.1987).................................36, 47
`
`Drayer v. Krasner, 572 F.2d 348, 352 (2d Cir.) ....................................................35
`
`E. F. Prichard Co. v. Consumers Brewing Co., 136 F.2d 512, 518 (6th Cir. 1943) 64
`
`Epton v. Moskee Investment Co. et al, 180 Or. 86, 93, 174 P.2d 418 (1946) .........51
`
`Fid. Reserve & Loan Co. v. Lincoln Cty. Logging Co., 144 Or. 45, 51, 23 P.2d 905,
`
`907 (1933) ........................................................................................................56
`
`Fisser v. International Bank, 282 F.2d 231 (2d Cir., 1960) ...................................63
`
`7
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 8 of 76
`
`George Hantscho Co. v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc., 33 F.R.D. 332, 334-35
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1963)................................................................................................49
`
`Girl Scouts of U.S. of America v. Hollingsworth, 188 F.Supp. 707, 714 (E.D.N.Y
`
`1960).................................................................................................................64
`
`Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC v. Puri, No. 3:11-CV-01358-HZ, 2013 WL
`
`4046326, at *4 ............................................................................................20, 65
`
`Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. A. & P. Radio Stores, 20 F. Supp. 703, 706 (E.D. Pa.
`
`1937).................................................................................................................63
`
`Henfree v. Bromley (1805) 6 East, 309, 102 Eng. Reprint, 1305 ...........................59
`
`Huth v. Hillsboro Ins. Mgmt., Inc., 72 F.Supp.2d 506, 510 (E.D.Pa.1999) ............50
`
`I/S Stavborg v. National Metal Converters, Inc., 500 F.2d 424, 432 (2d Cir.1974)
`
`..........................................................................................................................35
`
`Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 265 v. O.K. Elec. Co., 793 F.2d 214, 216
`
`(8th Cir.1986) ...................................................................................................63
`
`Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Silver State Disposal Serv., Inc., 109 F.3d 1409, 1411
`
`(9th Cir.1997) ...................................................................................................59
`
`Invista S.A.R.L. v. Rhodia, S.A., 625 F.3d 75, 85 (3d Cir. 2010)............................52
`
`Katir v. Columbia Univ., 15 F.3d 23, 25 (2d Cir. 1994) ........................................65
`
`Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or.App. 233, 243, 607 P.2d 1386 (1980).............................68
`
`8
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 9 of 76
`
`Letizia v. Prudential Bache Secs., Inc., 802 F.2d 1185, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 1986)...53
`
`McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d
`
`731, 734 (9th Cir.1982) .....................................................................................59
`
`Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker, 808 F.2d 930, 933 (2d Cir.
`
`1986)...........................................................................................................35, 61
`
`Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)
`
`..........................................................................................................................35
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Eco Chem Inc., 757 F.2d 1256, 1265 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985).................................................................................................................50
`
`Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 330 F.3d 843, 846–48 (6th Cir.2003)
`
`....................................................................................................................62, 63
`
`NCR Corp. v. CBS Liquor Control, Inc.,874 F. Supp. 168,173 (S.D. Ohio 1993)..62
`
`NCR Corp. v. Sac-Co., 43 F.3d 1076, 1995 Fed. App. 0014P, 1995 WL 8999 (6th
`
`Cir. 1995 ...........................................................................................................62
`
`Newell v. Weston, 156 Or.App. 371, 965 P.2d 1039 (1998) ..................................68
`
`Office & Prof’l Employees Int'l Union, Local No. 471 v. Brownsville Gen. Hosp.,
`
`186 F.3d 326, 331 (3d Cir. 1999) ......................................................................58
`
`Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Rohm & Haas, Texas Inc., 677 F.2d
`
`492, 495 (5th Cir.1982). ....................................................................................59
`
`9
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 10 of 76
`
`Orion Shipping & Trading Co. v. E. States Petroleum Corp. of Panama, S. A., 312
`
`F.2d 299, 300-01 (2d Cir. 1963)........................................................................63
`
`PowerAgent Inc. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 358 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004)...34
`
`Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991).......64
`
`Puri v. Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-01380-HZ ..........................20
`
`Reg’l Local Union No. 846 v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1099
`
`(D. Or. 2016).....................................................................................................60
`
`Siegel v. Titan Indus. Corp., 779 F.2d 891, 892-93 (2d Cir.1985) .........................35
`
`Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1146, (9th Cir. 2008) ....60
`
`Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, (2d Cir. 1995) ....52, 53
`
`United States Ozone Co. v. United States Ozone Co., 62 F.(2d) 881 (7th Cir. 1932)
`
`..........................................................................................................................63
`
`Wade v. Mahler, 167 Or. App. 350, 358, 1 P.3d 485, 490 (2000)..........................68
`
`Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436-37, 74 S.Ct. 182, 187-88, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953 .35
`
`Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers S., Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 138-
`
`39 (2d Cir.1991)................................................................................................53
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1121...................................................................................................17
`
`15 U.S.C. §1051..............................................................................................18, 24
`
`10
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 11 of 76
`
`15 U.S.C. §1119..............................................................................................18, 24
`
`15 U.S.C.A. § 1051.........................................................................................31, 64
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331...................................................................................................17
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1338...................................................................................................17
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367...................................................................................................17
`
`28 U.S.C. §1291....................................................................................................17
`
`9 U.S.C. § 10 ........................................................................................................34
`
`9 USC § 10(a)(4) ..................................................................................................33
`
`CLAIMS. O.R.S. § 20.077(2) ........................................................................32, 68
`
`Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. § 10...................................................................16
`
`O.R.S. § 20.077 ....................................................................................................66
`
`TMEP §803.03(d) .................................................................................................64
`
`U.S.C.A. § 10 .......................................................................................................57
`
`11
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 12 of 76
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This appeal arises from orders of the District Court that: 1) confirmed, rather
`
`than vacated, an Arbitration Award that did not address or resolve all disputes
`
`raised; 2) improperly remanded to the Arbitrators issues that were outside of the
`
`Arbitrators’ jurisdiction and arose post-arbitration, and 3) confirmed an award of
`
`attorney fees which was contrary to Oregon law.
`
`The underlying arbitration related to a 2004 intellectual property license
`
`(“License”) granted by Appellant Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri’s (“Bibiji”) deceased
`
`husband, Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji (often referred to as “Yogi Bhajan”) as
`
`Trustee of their Joint Living Trust (“Living Trust”), to Appellee East West Tea
`
`Company, LLC f.k.a. Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC (“EWTC”). The License
`
`covered a bundle of intellectual property referred to as the HSKY Marks, including
`
`the YOGI trademarks, logos, trade dress, SKUs, packaging designs, product
`
`names, copyrights and Yogi Bhajan’s sayings, all of which was associated with the
`
`YOGI tea and other products (“Marks”). The License provided all use of the
`
`Marks inured to the benefit of the owner, and required return of all intellectual
`
`property upon termination.
`
`EWTC had registered the Marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`and internationally. EWTC terminated the License in 2008 and breached the
`
`12
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 13 of 76
`
`License by refusing to return all licensed property, claiming ownership of the
`
`Marks, and willfully infringing by continuing to use the Marks.
`
`Bibiji, now 82 years old, succeeded the Living Trust as a 50% owner of the
`
`Marks upon Yogi Bhajan’s death. The other 50% interest was devised by Yogi
`
`Bhajan to provide a life estate in the income from the License for the benefit of a
`
`group of his assistants through the Yogi Bhajan Administrative Trust, to be
`
`administered by Sopurkh Kaur Khalsa (“Sopurkh”), Shakti Parwha Kaur Khalsa
`
`(“Shakti”), and Ek Ong Kar Kaur Khalsa (“Ek Ong Kar”), as co-trustees (the
`
`“Trustees”), with the residuary ownership to vest in the Legacy of Yogi Bhajan
`
`Foundation (“LYF’). The Trustees were fully aware of the improper termination
`
`of the License by EWTC, its breaches of contract and ongoing infringement,1 but
`
`did not seek arbitration and refused to join Bibiji in her arbitration.2
`
`1 Sopurkh was on the Board of EWTC when it terminated the License. See,
`Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Exh A.
`
`2 Sopurkh and Shakti were also amongst the Assistants that were
`beneficiaries to Yogi Bhajan’s personal estate. Bibiji had sought an accounting of
`that estate and reallocation to Yogi Bhajan’s share of various gifts and donations
`made by him without her knowledge and consent. Sopurkh and Shakti’s share of
`Yogi Bhajan’s personal estate would have been adversely affected by any
`reallocation. The Trustees and EWTC demanded Bibiji withdraw her claims to
`reallocation of estate assets and threatened termination of the License if she did not
`agree. Bibiji refused and EWTC terminated the License. EWTC assured the
`Trustees that their income share due under the License would be replaced under a
`scheme called “YB Assurances.” See, RJN, Exh A and B.
`13
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 14 of 76
`
`Bibiji ultimately prevailed on all claims against EWTC. The Arbitrators
`
`granted Bibiji an injunction, damages for infringement up to the effective date of
`
`the injunction, required EWTC to assign all U.S. registrations of the Marks to
`
`Bibiji, and awarded attorney fees. Although Bibiji’s claims were not limited to
`
`U.S. rights, the Arbitrators refused to consider or rule upon any rights to the
`
`intellectual property outside the U.S. or their infringement.
`
`Bibiji’s efforts to negotiate a new license failed. EWTC took an Interim
`
`License Agreement (“ILA”) from the Trustees which improperly granted an
`
`exclusive worldwide license covering a vastly expanded scope of products.
`
`EWTC then filed this declaratory relief action seeking to partially vacate the
`
`Arbitration Award and Bibiji filed a Petition to Confirm the Award. The two
`
`actions were consolidated. EWTC and the Trustees moved to partially vacate the
`
`Award and remand the matter to the Arbitrators for reconsideration of the
`
`injunction, damages, and assignment of the Marks to Bibiji alone.
`
`The District Court denied the Trustees’ motion for lack of standing, but
`
`partially granted EWTC’s motion and remanded to the Arbitrators to reconsider the
`
`injunction and damages in light of the ILA, and confirmed the remainder of the
`
`Award. On remand, the Arbitrators vacated their injunction and amended the
`
`award of damages to exclude damages after the effective date of the ILA.
`
`14
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 15 of 76
`
`EWTC moved to confirm the Award on Remand, but alternatively for a
`
`further remand on the issue of assignment of the Marks. Despite having twice
`
`confirmed assignment of the Marks to Bibiji alone, the District Court remanded the
`
`matter a second time to the Arbitrators. On second rehearing the Arbitrators issued
`
`a Final Award on Second Remand requiring assignment of the Marks to both Bibiji
`
`and the Trustees, and awarded attorney fees to EWTC despite the fact that EWTC
`
`had not prevailed on any claim in the arbitration.
`
`Sadly, 14 years after Yogi Bhajan’s death, and over 10 years after EWTC’s
`
`usurpation and willful infringement of Bibiji’s intellectual property rights, the
`
`issues remain unresolved and EWTC continues to use and benefit from Bibiji’s
`
`intellectual property without compensating Bibiji. This is the direct result of: 1) the
`
`Arbitrators misapprehension of the scope of their jurisdiction refusing to rule on
`
`ownership of worldwide rights to the intellectual property, 2) compounded by the
`
`District Court’s failure to properly correct their errors, and 3) the District Court’s
`
`own improper orders allowing post-arbitration events to affect the rightful outcome
`
`based on the evidence presented at arbitration; 4) the District Court’s remand to the
`
`arbitrators of issues raised by persons lacking standing; and 5) the District Court’s
`
`confirmation of an award that recognized and gave effect to a new license from the
`
`Trustees who lacked authority to grant an exclusive license to use intellectual
`
`property co-owned by Bibiji.
`
`15
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 16 of 76
`
`The Arbitrators failed to address or resolve all disputes raised by Bibiji and
`
`did not apply, or ignored, well-defined, explicit, and clearly applicable governing
`
`legal principles. The District Court improperly failed to require the Arbitrators to
`
`decide all issues presented and erred in requiring the Arbitrators to consider the
`
`impact of the post-arbitration ILA upon the assignment of trademark registrations,
`
`damages and injunction of infringing use of the Marks. Such post-arbitration
`
`events should not have affected the parties’ rights established by the evidence
`
`considered at arbitration. The District Court erred again in confirming the award
`
`requiring assignment of the Marks to both Bibiji and the Trustees and awarding
`
`attorney fees to EWTC.
`
`The Court should reverse the District Court’s Order and remand this matter
`
`to the District Court with direction to vacate the Award on Remand and Final
`
`Award on Second Remand, and require the Arbitrators: (a) to adjudicate all
`
`remaining issues, (b) require assignment of all HSKY Marks to Bibiji, (c) reinstate
`
`the injunction, (d) make a determination, consistent with the evidence presented at
`
`arbitration of willfulness and (e) award appropriate damages and fees to Bibiji.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`This action arises under the Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. § 10, pursuant
`
`16
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 17 of 76
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Subject matter jurisdiction exists for declaratory relief under
`
`Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338, and supplemental jurisdiction
`
`over the state and common-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. [ER 1241;
`
`1440]
`
`Bibiji appeals from the District Court’s Opinion & Order entered June 2,
`
`2017 and related prior Orders confirming and partially vacating arbitration awards.
`
`[ER 1-41] Bibiji timely filed her Notice of Appeal on June 28, 2017. [ER 43-62],
`
`Fed.R.App.P. 4(A)(1)(a). Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1291.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`1. Whether the District Court erred in confirming the Final Award on Second
`Remand where the Award was not “final and definite” in that worldwide
`rights had not been decided and Bibiji’s attorney fees were not awarded for
`post-Award work.
`
`2. Whether the District Court erred in denying Bibiji’s motion to compel
`assignment of the trademark registrations and applications to Bibiji alone
`after twice having confirmed that portion of the Award and having ruled the
`Trustees lacked standing to contest the assignment having not participated in
`the arbitration.
`
`3. Whether the District Court erred in remanding the Award for reconsideration
`of the injunction and damages based on an unlawful post-arbitration
`exclusive worldwide license issued by a co-owner non-party to the
`arbitration.
`
`4. Whether the District Court erred in confirming the Arbitration Award on
`Remand because the Arbitrators exceeded their powers in giving effect to an
`17
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 18 of 76
`
`exclusive worldwide license issued by a co-owner of the intellectual
`property.
`
`5. Whether the District Court erred by improperly allowing EWTC to assert the
`rights and equities of the Trustees who were not parties to the arbitration.
`
`6. Whether the District Court erred by confirming an award of attorney fees to
`EWTC when EWTC was clearly not the prevailing party in the arbitration
`under Oregon law.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Bibiji’s Demand for Arbitration asserted claims against EWTC for: 1)
`
`Federal Statutory and Common Law Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. §1051 et
`
`seq.); 2) Violation of Section 43(A) of the Lanham Act; 3) Unfair Competition; 4)
`
`Imposition Of Constructive Trust; 5) Declaratory Relief; 6) Assignment of
`
`Trademark Applications and Registrations to all “Yogi” and “Yogi Tea” Marks; 7)
`
`Determination that Respondent Has No Right to Register; and 8) Cancellation of
`
`Registered Marks (15 U.S.C. §1119).
`
`[ER 1320-1407] Bibiji amended her
`
`Demand to include Breach of Contract. [ER 1447-63]
`
`On July 29, 2011, the three Arbitrator Panel issued Findings of Fact and
`
`Notice of Award. [ER 1408-22] On November 10, 2011, the Panel issued its
`
`Arbitration Award. [ER 1423-32]
`
`EWTC initiated the present case with a “Complaint to Partially Vacate
`
`18
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 19 of 76
`
`Arbitration Award.” [ER 1439-46] Bibiji filed a Petition to Confirm the
`
`Arbitration Award. Puri v. Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-01380-
`
`HZ. [ER 1281-1438] EWTC amended its Complaint adding the Trustees as
`
`defendants. [ER 1239-76] The court consolidated the two cases and Golden
`
`Temple of Oregon, LLC v. Puri et al, No. 3:11-cv-01358, became the lead case.
`
`[ER 1237]
`
`EWTC filed a Motion to Vacate or Partially Vacate Arbitration Award [ER
`
`1235-36] and Bibiji filed a Motion to Dismiss EWTC’s Complaint. [ER 1143-47]
`
`The Trustees filed a Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and/or Remand for New
`
`Arbitration Hearing. [ER 1140-42]
`
`EWTC and the Trustees each filed motions to supplement the record to add
`
`documents relating to litigation between Bibiji and the Trustees in the New Mexico
`
`state court. [ER 1087-88; 1092-94] The Trustees subsequently filed a Motion to
`
`further supplement the record. [ER 1009-11]
`
`The District Court granted in part EWTC’s motion, vacating the injunction
`
`and damages after October 1, 2011; directing the Arbitrators to determine the
`
`effect of the Interim License; vacating the Trustees’ Motion to Vacate for lack of
`
`standing; and denying Bibiji’s Motion to Dismiss. The District Court also granted
`
`the motions to supplement the record, and denied the Trustees’ motion to further
`
`supplement the record. The District Court dismissed as moot Bibiji’s Petition to
`
`19
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 20 of 76
`
`Confirm the Award. [ER 28-41]
`
`EWTC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification [ER 1003-
`
`05], and Bibiji filed a Motion to compel EWTC to assign the trademark
`
`registrations. [ER 996-1002]
`
`EWTC filed a Motion for Stay of Order Requiring Assignment of
`
`Trademark Registrations [ER 959-61] and Bibiji filed a Motion for Stay of
`
`Referral to Arbitration Panel.
`
`[ER 1473]
`
`The District Court denied EWTC’s Motion for Clarification and/or
`
`Reconsideration and Bibiji’s Motion to Compel Assignment and also denied
`
`EWTC’s Motion to Stay Assignment as moot, and Bibiji’s Motion to Stay Referral
`
`to Arbitration. [ER 24-27]
`
`On remand the Arbitrators vacated the injunction, and damages subsequent
`
`to October 1, 2011, based on the ILA. They did not award attorney fees. EWTC
`
`improperly submitted issues regarding assignment of the trademark registrations,
`
`exceeding the scope of the remand Order. This improper submission led to the
`
`Arbitrators reciting that: “There now exists an inconsistency between ownership of
`
`the Yogi Marks and ownership of the registrations and applications for the Yogi
`
`Marks. However, because the District Court upheld the portion of the Award
`
`relating to the assignment of the registrations and applications, reconsideration of
`
`20
`
`

`

` Case: 17-35542, 07/02/2018, ID: 10929353, DktEntry: 31, Page 21 of 76
`
`that issue is not properly before this Panel at this time.” [ER 823]
`
`EWTC moved to confirm the Arbitration Award on Remand, or
`
`alternatively, for further

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