Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA948602
`
`Filing date:
`
`01/18/2019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`91239962
`
`Defendant
`Humu, Inc.
`
`CHANTAL Z HWANG
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, SUITE 700
`WASHINGTON, DC 20004
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@cooley.com
`415-693-2000
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Christopher Civil
`
`ahurst@orrick.com, drutowski@orrick.com, ccivil@orrick.com, mwedding-
`ton@orrick.com, ipprosecution@orrick.com
`
`/Christopher Civil/
`
`01/18/2019
`
`HUMU Opposition Notification of Civil Action 91239962.pdf(7302 bytes )
`HUMU - 91239962 - Exhibit A - TTAB.pdf(181680 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 87/433,012; 87/433,020; and 87/433,022
`Published in the Official Gazette on September 12, 2017 and January 23, 2018
`Trademark: HUMU
`
`Hulu, LLC,
`
`Opposition No.: 91239962
`
`Opposers,
`
`v.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Humu, Inc.,
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING IN VIEW OF PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`
`PURSUANT TO TRADEMARK RULE 2.117(a)
`
`On January 18, 2019, Applicant, Humu, Inc. (“Applicant”), filed a civil action against
`
`Hulu, Inc. (“Opposer”) in the Northern District of California. Applicant hereby attaches a true
`
`and correct copy of the Complaint in Humu, Inc. v Hulu, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00327
`
`as Exhibit A. The civil action involves issues which are central to this proceeding.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(c) and T.M.B.P. § 510.03(a), Applicant accordingly hereby
`
`requests suspension of this proceeding pending determination of the civil action.
`
`Dated: January 18, 2019
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`By: /Christopher Civil/________________
`Diana Rutowski
`Christopher Civil
`Attorneys for Humu, Inc.
`
`1
`
`

`

`2050 Main St., Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`(650) 614-7685
`
`2
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`PROCEEDING IN VIEW OF PENDING CIVIL ACTION is being served upon counsel for
`
`Opposer by electronic mail on January 18, 2019 at the email address indicated below:
`
`tmango@cantorcolburn.com
`vricci@cantorcolburn.com
`
`By:
`
`/Marley Weddington/
`Marley Weddington
`
`4150-6294-5049
`
`3
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBITA
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 9
`
`ANNETTE L. HURST (SBN 148738)
`ahurst@orrick.com
`DIANA M. RUTOWSKI (SBN 233878)
`drutowski@orrick.com
`NATHAN SHAFFER (SBN 282015)
`nshaffer@orrick.com
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`
`ANDREW JOONMIN KIM (SBN 303081)
`ajkim@orrick.com
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
`Telephone:
`+1 213 629 2020
`Facsimile:
`+1 213 612 2499
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Humu, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Humu, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-327
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`
`v.
`
`Hulu, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 9
`
`Plaintiff Humu, Inc. (“Humu” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action for declaratory judgment
`
`against Defendant Hulu, LLC (“Hulu” or “Defendant”).
`
`NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`1.
`
`Humu is an innovative startup founded by three former Google employees. From
`
`its inception, Humu has been a people sciences company that applies analytics and machine-
`
`learning to support human resources activities. Humu promotes better management through its
`
`Nudge Engine℠—a system that uses psychological research and algorithms to encourage
`
`employees to take small personal steps to improve the workplace experience. Humu’s target
`
`customers are entities who employ enough people to make the investment in the Humu systems
`
`worthwhile. The decision to purchase and implement Humu’s system and services is a significant
`
`one because it requires meaningful organizational commitment to implement and make use of the
`
`company’s software and services.
`
`2.
`
`The name HUMU was inspired by the Hawaiian name for the triggerfish. Two of
`
`Humu’s founders first connected and struck up a friendship in Hawaii. Later in 2017, they
`
`decided to form a new company together and looked for a name inspired in part by that
`
`auspicious meeting. The triggerfish is the Hawaiian state fish and well known there by its full
`
`Hawaiian name “humuhumunukunuku apua’a,” or “humuhumu” for short. Its sound and
`
`appearance are evocative of “human” in connection with the company’s human resources
`
`services. With these two qualities, HUMU seemed like the perfect choice. The founders of
`
`Humu adopted it as their trade name, adopted the HUMU trademark and service mark for their
`
`software and services, and began using it in their business to raise funds and hire employees. In
`
`May 2017, they applied for trademark and service mark protection with the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office. In mid-2017, they acquired the domain name www.humu.com from a
`
`third party and began publishing a “stealth mode” website.
`
`3.
`
`Approximately six months later, the subscription-based consumer entertainment
`
`company Hulu sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Plaintiff cease all use of the mark
`
`HUMU. Defendant alleged likelihood of confusion and dilution between the HULU and HUMU
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`trademarks as used respectively by Plaintiff and Defendant. Even as the nature of Plaintiff’s
`
`- 2 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 9
`
`business became more and more apparent and the reason for any concern evaporated, Defendant
`
`continued to contest Plaintiff’s right to use its HUMU mark, threatened litigation, and even
`
`challenged its HUMU trademark and service mark applications. All subsequent efforts at
`
`resolution have failed. Accordingly, there is presently an actual controversy between the parties
`
`as to whether the HUMU mark as used by Plaintiff is confusingly similar to the HULU mark as
`
`used by Defendant, and whether Plaintiff’s mark causes dilution. Plaintiff apprehends that it will
`
`be sued, and is not required to sit by and wait for Defendant to decide when it will bring
`
`litigation.
`
`4.
`
`Accordingly, this is a civil action for declaratory relief to vindicate the rights of
`
`Plaintiff to continue use of its trade name, trademark and service mark HUMU. Plaintiff seeks
`
`through this lawsuit declarations that its use of the HUMU mark does not create a likelihood of
`
`confusion, cause dilution, or otherwise unlawfully violate Defendant’s rights under the Lanham
`
`Act or state law.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Humu, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal
`
`place of business in Mountain View, California.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Hulu LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal
`
`place of business in California, including offices in San Francisco and Santa Monica.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for declaratory relief arising under the Lanham Act, codified at
`
`U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it maintains its
`
`principal place of business in California, conducts business in this district under the HULU
`
`trademark, maintains offices in this District, employs individuals in this District, and claims that
`
`the HULU mark is famous, diluted and infringed in this District. Defendant’s assertion that its
`
`mark is famous in this District for purposes of trademark law, whether correct or not, necessarily
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`means that Defendant has conducted widespread and systematic business activities in this
`
`- 3 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 9
`
`District. Furthermore, Defendant intentionally sent a cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff in this
`
`District, threatening litigation and demanding that Plaintiff cease using its trade name and the
`
`HUMU mark, knowing that the effects of that demand would be felt in this District.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in
`
`this district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and 1391(d) because Defendant resides in
`
`this district.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Humu’s Business and Brand.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Humu was founded in 2017 by former Google employees Wayne Crosby,
`
`Laszlo Bock, and Jessie Wisdom to apply machine learning in the context of human talent
`
`development. Humu is a people sciences company providing support for organizations’ human
`
`resources departments through its innovative and unique Nudge Engine. The Nudge Engine
`
`begins with an organizational diagnostic that combines scientifically-validated and actionable
`
`questions with cutting-edge, comprehensive demographic analytics to develop a thorough
`
`understanding of every team within a company or organization. Through this diagnostic, Humu
`
`identifies the top drivers of happiness, productivity, and retention for every team. Then, with
`
`“nudges” generated by the Nudge Engine—nudges are short messages conveying individualized
`
`advice or suggestions—the company can take the right actions at the right time. Humu’s nudges
`
`activate every person in a team in a way that is customized, contextualized, and complementary.
`
`Humu’s technology results in measurable improvements in outcomes that matter—retention,
`
`innovation, inclusion, productivity, and (most importantly) happiness.
`
`11.
`
`Two of Humu’s founders, Wayne and Laszlo, first had a meaningful interaction
`
`when Wayne won an award for his work at Google and Laszlo presented the award at a 2012
`
`event in Hawaii. Their meeting in Hawaii began a friendship, and in 2017 Wayne and Laszlo,
`
`together with their third co-founder Jessie Wisdom, started a company together based on people
`
`analytics and happiness. The name “Humu” was inspired by their connection in Hawaii with
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`reference to the Hawaiian triggerfish, which is the state fish of Hawaii and commonly known by
`
`- 4 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 5 of 9
`
`its Hawaiian name “humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa” or just “humuhumu” for short. The inspiration
`
`of the humuhumu fish is also reflected in Humu’s branding, which is aquatic-themed and includes
`
`stylized fish, aquatic plants, and seascapes. The aquatic theme extends across Humu’s branding,
`
`including aquatic-themed conference room names at Humu’s headquarters.
`
`12.
`
`The name “Humu” also lends itself well to a people sciences company because
`
`“Humu” is evocative of concepts related to “humans,” such as human happiness, human
`
`psychology, and, in the business world, human resources.
`
`13.
`
`Humu’s target customers are large business enterprises and organizations
`
`interested in implementing researched-based tools to motivate employees across the organization
`
`to take small steps to improve employee happiness, which in turn drives high morale and
`
`employee retention. Humu markets its services directly to business executives. Humu and its
`
`desire to bring data-driven analytics to companies has been profiled favorably in business
`
`publications such as Forbes and in the technology section of the New York Times.
`
`14.
`
`Humu’s product is provided through an ongoing services contract that is generally
`
`managed by business executives or human resource managers. Once a company purchases
`
`Humu’s product, Humu works with the company’s business executives to develop a sophisticated
`
`profile of an organization in order to identify the organization’s unique attributes and goals, and
`
`custom-tailors its Nudge Engine to assist in bolstering those goals. Humu’s services are not off-
`
`the-shelf. Due to the large amount of information collected by Humu to support the Nudge
`
`Engine and associated cost, Humu’s clients engage in careful consideration before using Humu’s
`
`services and software. Often, the decision to implement Humu’s Nudge Engine is made at the
`
`highest executive levels of Humu’s clients.
`
`15.
`
`In short, Humu’s prospective clients are not confused in any respect about whether
`
`they are dealing with a consumer entertainment company when encountering the mark HUMU on
`
`Plaintiff’s software and services and evaluating a purchase decision.
`
`B.
`
`Hulu’s Business.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Hulu is a subscription-based streaming video services provider. Hulu
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`streams television shows and movies over the internet to individual and family subscribers.
`
`- 5 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 6 of 9
`
`Hulu’s content catalog includes original content as well as content licensed from other producers.
`
`Hulu competes for the consumer entertainment dollar with over-the-air broadcasters, with internet
`
`and cable-based video-on-demand services, and other large streaming entities like Amazon.com
`
`and Netflix. Hulu does not offer services related to human resources or employee happiness and
`
`retention. Hulu’s services are offered at a retail-consumer level to individuals and families that
`
`subscribe to a monthly subscription service.
`
`17.
`
`The word “hulu” actually means a type of video service in the Mandarin language.
`
`According to Hulu’s company blog:
`
`In Mandarin, Hulu has two interesting meanings, each highly
`relevant to our mission. The primary meaning interested us because
`it is used in an ancient Chinese proverb that describes the Hulu as the
`holder of precious things. It literally translates to “gourd,” and in
`ancient times, the Hulu was hollowed out and used to hold precious
`things. The secondary meaning is “interactive recording”. We saw
`both definitions as appropriate bookends and highly relevant to the
`mission of Hulu.
`
`C.
`
`The Parties’ Dispute.
`
`1.
`
`Hulu’s Cease-and-Desist Letter.
`
`18.
`
`On December 20, 2017, Defendant sent Plaintiff’s counsel a cease-and-desist
`
`letter. In the letter, Defendant asserted trademark rights, including U.S. Trademark Registration
`
`Nos. 3,878,144, 4,129,912, 4,317,326, 4,614,054, and 4,649,516 (the “HULU Marks”), and
`
`alleged that the HUMU mark “is confusingly similar to the HULU Marks” and that Plaintiff’s
`
`“registration and/or use of the HUMU Marks is likely to confuse, deceive, and/or mislead
`
`consumers into believing that [Humu’s] good and services come from Hulu or that Hulu has
`
`licensed, endorsed, sponsored, or otherwise authorized or approved [Humu’s] goods and
`
`services.”
`
`19.
`
`Defendant’s cease and desist letter also asserted that the “HUMU Marks are likely
`
`to cause dilution of the distinctiveness of the famous HULU Marks through blurring and/or
`
`tarnishment” and that “registration of the HUMU Marks would infringe and dilute Hulu’s
`
`valuable trademark rights and constitute unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Act.”
`
`- 6 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 7 of 9
`
`20.
`
`Defendant demanded that Plaintiff abandon its trademark applications with
`
`prejudice, stop any and all use and planned use of the HUMU Marks … and provide written
`
`assurances to Defendant that Plaintiff would not resume such use in the future. Defendant further
`
`expressly threatened “costly litigation.”
`
`COUNT I
`
`Declaratory Judgment of No Likelihood of Confusion,
`Trademark Infringement, or Unfair Competition
`(15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(A); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14245)
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
`22.
`
`Likelihood of confusion is an essential element of claims brought pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a), which Defendant must establish in order to succeed on a claim
`
`brought pursuant to those sections or under analogous state law.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Hulu claims that Plaintiff’s use and application for registration of the
`
`HUMU mark as alleged herein is likely to cause confusion with respect to the HULU trademark.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff denies that its use of the HUMU mark is likely to cause confusion with
`
`respect to Defendant’s trademarks. Plaintiff’s use the HUMU mark is not in violation of any
`
`rights Defendant may have in the HULU mark under the Lanham Act or California trademark
`
`law.
`
`25.
`
`Consequently, there is an actual and substantial controversy between Humu and
`
`Hulu regarding Humu’s rights to use and seek registration of the HUMU mark. In order to
`
`resolve the legal and factual issues raised by Hulu and to afford relief from the controversy which
`
`Hulu’s assertions have precipitated, Humu is entitled to a declaratory judgment confirming its
`
`rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Declaratory Judgment of No Dilution
`(15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247)
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 7 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 8 of 9
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s use of the HUMU mark as alleged herein is likely
`
`to dilute through blurring or tarnishment the HULU trademark.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff denies that its use of the HUMU mark is likely to dilute through blurring
`
`or tarnishment Defendant’s trademarks. Plaintiff’s use of the HUMU mark is not in violation of
`
`any rights Defendant may have in the HULU mark under the Lanham Act or California law.
`
`29.
`
`It is Defendant’s burden to establish that the HULU mark is famous under 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(c) and Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 14330, and to establish dilution under those
`
`statutes. Defendant cannot meet these burdens.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s use of the HULU mark is relevant to only a portion of the consuming
`
`public. Even if it has achieved notoriety among certain broadband internet users willing to
`
`consider the use of third-party video streaming services, this kind of niche fame is not the type of
`
`secondary meaning that qualifies as fame for purposes of dilution.
`
`31.
`
`Nor will Plaintiff’s use of the HUMU mark dilute by blurring Defendant’s HULU
`
`mark. The HUMU and HULU marks create significantly different commercial impressions. In
`
`addition, HUMU has no intention to create an association with the HULU mark. There is no
`
`actual association between the HUMU and HULU marks.
`
`32.
`
`Nor is there any about Plaintiff’s use of HUMU that will tarnish or otherwise harm
`
`the reputation of the Defendant’s HULU mark.
`
`33.
`
`An actual controversy exists between the parties, and Plaintiff has a reasonable
`
`apprehension of being sued by Defendant. Defendant’s cease-and-desist states that “costly
`
`litigation” can be avoided only if Plaintiff abandons its HUMU marks and name. Defendant’s
`
`letter claims that the HULU mark is famous and asserts that Plaintiff will dilute that mark.
`
`34.
`
`In addition to its letter, Defendant has made similar claims to the TTAB in
`
`opposing Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain trademark and service mark registrations.
`
`35.
`
`Consequently, there is an actual and substantial controversy between Plaintiff and
`
`Defendant regarding Plaintiff’s rights to use and seek registration of the HUMU mark. In order to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`resolve the issues raised by Defendant and to dispel the controversy and cloud which Defendant’s
`
`- 8 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 9 of 9
`
`assertions have created for Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment confirming its
`
`rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Humu, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court grant the
`
`following relief:
`
`A. Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on each count;
`
`B. A declaration from the Court that Plaintiff’s use and registration of the HUMU
`
`mark is not likely to cause confusion as to Defendant’s use and registration of the
`
`HULU marks.
`
`C. A declaration from the Court that Defendant’s HULU mark is not famous for
`
`purposes of the dilution statutes.
`
`D. A declaration from the Court that Plaintiff’s use and registration of the HUMU
`
`mark does not dilute through blurring and/or tarnishment the HULU mark.
`
`E. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of suit.
`
`F. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: January 18, 2019
`
`ANNETTE L. HURST
`DIANA M. RUTOWSKI
`NATHAN SHAFFER
`ANDREW J. KIM
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Annette L. Hurst
`ANNETTE L. HURST
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Humu, Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 9 -
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`NO. 3:19-CV-327
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 2
`JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
`
`The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
`except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
`Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`Hulu, LLC
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`
`San Francisco
`
`NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
`
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
`
`Attorneys (If Known)
`
`Humu, Inc.
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
` (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`Santa Clara
`
`(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
`Annette Hurst, Diana Rutowski, Nathan Shaffer, and Andrew Kim
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`
`1 U.S. Government Plaintiff
`
`3
`
`Federal Question
`(U.S. Government Not a Party)
`
`2 U.S. Government Defendant
`
`4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
` (For Diversity Cases Only)
`and One Box for Defendant)
`PTF DEF
`4
`4
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`PTF
`1
`
`DEF
`1
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Foreign Country
`
`2
`
`3
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`of Business In This State
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`Foreign Nation
`
`5
`
`6
`
`5
`
`6
`
`IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`CONTRACT
`TORTS
`
`110 Insurance
`
`120 Marine
`
`130 Miller Act
`
`140 Negotiable Instrument
`
`150 Recovery of
`Overpayment Of
`Veteran’s Benefits
`
`151 Medicare Act
`
`152 Recovery of Defaulted
`Student Loans (Excludes
`Veterans)
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`310 Airplane
`
`315 Airplane Product Liability
`
`320 Assault, Libel & Slander
`
`330 Federal Employers’
`Liability
`
`340 Marine
`
`345 Marine Product Liability
`
`350 Motor Vehicle
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`365 Personal Injury – Product
`Liability
`
`367 Health Care/
`Pharmaceutical Personal
`Injury Product Liability
`
`368 Asbestos Personal Injury
`Product Liability
`
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`
`370 Other Fraud
`
`371 Truth in Lending
`
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY
`
`BANKRUPTCY
`
`OTHER STATUTES
`
`625 Drug Related Seizure of
`Property 21 USC § 881
`
`690 Other
`
`422 Appeal 28 USC § 158
`
`375 False Claims Act
`
`423 Withdrawal 28 USC
`§ 157
`
`376 Qui Tam (31 USC
`§ 3729(a))
`
`LABOR
`
`PROPERTY RIGHTS
`
`710 Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`820 Copyrights
`
`720 Labor/Management
`Relations
`
`740 Railway Labor Act
`
`751 Family and Medical
`Leave Act
`
`830 Patent
`
`835 Patent"Abbreviated New
`Drug Application
`
`840 Trademark
`
`SOCIAL SECURITY
`
`400 State Reapportionment
`
`410 Antitrust
`
`430 Banks and Banking
`
`450 Commerce
`
`460 Deportation
`
`470 Racketeer Influenced &
`Corrupt Organizations
`
`480 Consumer Credit
`
`153 Recovery of
`Overpayment
`
` of Veteran’s Benefits
`
`160 Stockholders’ Suits
`
`190 Other Contract
`
`195 Contract Product Liability
`
`196 Franchise
`
`REAL PROPERTY
`
`210 Land Condemnation
`
`220 Foreclosure
`
`230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
`
`240 Torts to Land
`
`245 Tort Product Liability
`
`290 All Other Real Property
`
`355 Motor Vehicle Product
`Liability
`
`360 Other Personal Injury
`
`362 Personal Injury -Medical
`Malpractice
`
`380 Other Personal Property
`Damage
`
`385 Property Damage Product
`Liability
`
`CIVIL RIGHTS
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS
`
`440 Other Civil Rights
`
`HABEAS CORPUS
`
`441 Voting
`
`442 Employment
`
`443 Housing/
`Accommodations
`445 Amer. w/Disabilities–
`Employment
`446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other
`448 Education
`
`463 Alien Detainee
`
`510 Motions to Vacate
`Sentence
`
`530 General
`
`535 Death Penalty
`
`OTHER
`
`540 Mandamus & Other
`
`550 Civil Rights
`
`555 Prison Condition
`560 Civil Detainee–
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`790 Other Labor Litigation
`
`791 Employee Retirement
`Income Security Act
`
`IMMIGRATION
`
`462 Naturalization
`Application
`
`465 Other Immigration
`Actions
`
`861 HIA (1395ff)
`
`862 Black Lung (923)
`
`863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
`
`864 SSID Title XVI
`
`865 RSI (405(g))
`
`FEDERAL TAX SUITS
`
`870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
`Defendant)
`871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
`§ 7609
`
`490 Cable/Sat TV
`
`850 Securities/Commodities/
`Exchange
`
`890 Other Statutory Actions
`
`891 Agricultural Acts
`
`893 Environmental Matters
`
`895 Freedom of Information
`Act
`
`896 Arbitration
`
`899 Administrative Procedure
`Act/Review or Appeal of
`Agency Decision
`
`950 Constitutionality of State
`Statutes
`
`V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`1 Original
`2 Removed from
`Proceeding
`State Court
`
`3
`
`Remanded from
`Appellate Court
`
`4 Reinstated or
`Reopened
`
`5 Transferred from
`Another District (specify)
`
`6 Multidistrict
`Litigation–Transfer
`
`8 Multidistrict
`Litigation–Direct File
`
`VI. CAUSE OF
`ACTION
`
`Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
`28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a), 1125(c)
`Brief description of cause:
`Declaratory judgment of no likelihood of confusion, trademark infringement, unfair competition, or dilution
`
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`
`CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
`UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`DEMAND $
`
`0.00
`
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`JURY DEMAND:
`Yes
`No
`
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S),
`IF ANY (See instructions):
`
`JUDGE
`
`
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
`(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
`
`SAN JOSE
`
`EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
`
`DATE
`
`01/18/2019
`
`SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`
`/s/ Annette L. Hurst
`
`

`

`JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16)
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00327 Document 1-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
`
`Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
`service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
`Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
`submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
`
`I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
`only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
`then the official, giving both name and title.
`
` b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
`time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
`condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
`
` c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
`in this section “(see attachment).”
`
`II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
`pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
`
`(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
`
`(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
`
`(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
`to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
`takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
`
`(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
`citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
`cases.)
`
`III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
`Mark this section for each principal party.
`
`IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
`sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
`one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
`
`V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.
`
`(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
`
`(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the
`petition for removal is granted, check this box.
`
`(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
`date.
`
`(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
`
`(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
`multidistrict litigation transfers.
`
`(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
`§ 1407. When