Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA758604
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/15/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92062088
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`SurfSkate Industries, LLC
`
`SUSAN M MULLHOLLAND
`GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
`40 BROAD STREET
`BOSTON, MA 02109
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@gesmer.com
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`William E. Hilton
`
`william.hilton@gesmer.com, trademarks@gesmer.com,
`nieve.anjomi@gesmer.com
`
`/William E. Hilton/
`
`07/15/2016
`
`92062088_Brief.pdf(153932 bytes )
`92062088_ExhibitA.pdf(2350765 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`US. Reg. No. 3,839,107
`Cancellation No. 92/062088
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`)
`
`CARVER TNTERNATIONAL, ENC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURFSKATE INDUSTRIES, LLC.
`
`Respondent.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUSPEND FOR CIVIL ACTION
`
`Respondent, Snrfskate industries, LLC, hereby opposes Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend
`
`for Civil Action in the present action as well as in Cancellation No. 920639l2 concerning Reg.
`
`No. 4,977,027, Registered June 14, 2016. Petitioner has made no motion to consolidate the two
`
`proceedings. The present cancellation petition was filed August 21, 2015, and Petitioner has
`
`conducted no discovery in the present action. The second cancellation petition was recently filed
`
`on June 16, 2016. Respondent opposes consolidation of the two cancellation petitions as well as
`
`the motion to suspend at least on the basis that the petitions were filed almost a year apart.
`
`The basis for Petitioner’s present cancellation petition is that the design logo mark
`
`reprinted below includes a term (SURFSKATE) that Petitioner considers to be generic.
`
`
`
`In Reg. No. 4,977,027, Respondent expressly disclaimed the term SURFSKATE.
`
`
`Petitioner’s motion to stay asserts that the issues in a California Federai court action, Carver
`
`93892i .1
`
`

`

`
`International
`inc. v. Surfskate industries LLC, Civil Action No. 8: l5-cv-01348-AG—DFM (CD.
`
`Cal. 2015) are identical to those in the present cancellation petition. On June 24, 2016 however,
`
`Respondent filed in the District Court, a Motion to Dismiss all counts in Petitioner’s Amended
`
`Complaint. The hearing on the Motion is set for August 8, 2016. Respondent believes that all
`
`Counts in the Amended Complaint will be Dismissed, and that a granting of a stay in the present
`
`Cancellation Proceeding is premature and futile, and further that Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay at
`
`this stage is wasteful of the Board’s resources. A copy of the Motion to Dismiss is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`In the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent establishes that the count for declaratory judgment
`
`of trademark non—infringement should be dismissed because no cease and desist correspondence
`
`was ever sent to Petitioner, or sent or authorized by Respondent. Respondent also establishes
`
`that the count for cancellation of Reg. No. 3,839,107 should also then be dismissed because no
`
`
`infringement allegation will remain at issue in the Federal court action. §e_e Wham—O lnc. v.
`
`Manley Toys= Ltd, No. CV 08—07830 CBM SSX, 2009 WL 6361387 at *3, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1750
`
`(citing Homemakers, inc. v. The Chicago Home for the Friendless, 169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 262,
`
`263 (7th Cir.1971) (per curiam) (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine
`
`cancellation of a trademark if there is no independent claim of infringement». Respondent
`
`further establishes that Petitioner’s remaining state law counts must be dismissed because
`
`Petitioner seeks to enjoin Respondent’s use of a term that Petitioner considers to be generic and
`
`to which Petitioner has no intellectual property rights. Petitioner has, and asserts, no valid and
`
`protectable right to the term that it seeks to have Respondent enjoined from using. Such claims
`
`must fail as a matter of law. See KelloggCo. v. National Biscuit Co., 59 S.Ct. 109, 122, 83
`
`L.Ed. 73, 39 U.S.P.Q. 296 (1938) (“Sharing in the goodwill of an article unprotected by patent or
`
`93892l .1
`
`

`

`trade-mark is the exercise ofa right possessed by all _ and in the free exercise of which the
`
`consuming public is deeply interested”).
`
`The Federal court action has no basis in fact or law, and Respondent expects that the
`
`action will soon be dismissed. The present Motion to Suspend for Civil Action is therefore
`
`futile, and is at best premature.
`
`Dated: July 15, 2016
`
`GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
`
`Attorney for the Respondent
`Surfskate Industries, LLC
`,
`xi” ff/
`{pg’k/fy/ {9/
`William E. Hilton
`
`By:
`
`William.hilton@gesmer.com
`40 Broad Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: (6l7) 350—6800
`Facsimile: (617) 350-6878
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT AND SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 15, 20l6, I filed this document electronically with the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board and served a copy of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION To SUSPEND FOR CIVIL
`ACTION upon Petitioner’s counsel:
`
`THOMAS J: SPEISS, Ill (SEN 200949)
`STRADLTNG YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, RC.
`100 Wilshire Blvd, 4th Floor
`Santa Monica, California 90401
`Telephone: (424) 2l4-7042
`Facsimile: (424) 214-7010
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`CARVER INTERNATIONAL, INC
`
`by placing a copy in a separate envelope, with postage fully prepaid, for each address named above and
`depositing each in the U .8. Mail.
`
`93892l.l
`
`William E. Hilton
`
`.2
`// v
`
`f ‘
`’
`Jim” x”
`
`flgflsfiyfég’ggg
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND AI’PEAL BOARD
`
`CARVER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SURF SKATE INDUSTRIES, LLC.
`
`Respondent.
`
`wvvvvvvvvv
`
`US. Reg. No. 3,839,107
`Cancellation No. 92/062088
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`TO RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND FOR CIVIL ACTION
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`8:15—cv—01348—AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06/24/16 Pageiof37 Page ED #:1256
`
`NIEVE ANIOMI (SBN 219299)
`nieve.anjomi@gesmer.com
`GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
`
`9350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203
`
`Beverly Hiils, CA 90212
`TeIephone: (617) 350-6800
`Facsimile: (617) 350—6878
`
`WILLIAM E. HILTON (Pro Hac Vice)
`(Willia1n.Hi1ton@gesmer.com)
`CHARLES F. RODMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
`(Chuck.Rodman@gesmer.com)
`GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
`
`40 Broad Street
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Telephone: (617) 350-6800
`Facsimile: (617) 350-6878
`
`E Attorneys for Defendant,
`SURFSKATE INDUSTRIES, LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`VDCO‘4ChLn43U053h“
`
`b3b)b)M“knnuhahapdMdwupdn433E32%a:E:E3b3*4CDND00~JChLn43Lub9heCD
`
`{
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOCTI-IERN DIVISION
`
`CARVER INTERNATIONAL, INC, Case No: 8:15-cv—01348-AG-DFM
`a C20 i fem i a Cm‘pt‘n‘ation,
`
`Piaintiff,
`
`The Hon. Andrew 3. Guilford
`I MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
`E vs'
`Sterrssgm‘i met/germs: LLC: a: SUPPORT OF MOTION TO msmss
`i Fioride IAIHIIECI Liabiirty Company,
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`12(b)(1) AND 12(h)(6)
`
`Defendant(S).
`
`Amended Complaint Filed: June 10,
`
`2016
`
`Trial Date: None
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV-01348—AJG
`
`E 935516}
`I
`iI!
`a
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15-cv—01348-AG—DFM Document 60-1 Filed 06l24f16 Page 2 of 37 Page !D #:1257
`
`i
`
`2
`
`TABLEOFCONTENTS
`
`i
`
`l
`
`3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................
`
`................................................... i
`
`4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ iii
`
`Cases
`
`.................................................................................................. iii
`
`Statutes ................................................................................................................. ix
`
`Ruins
`
`............................... . ........................................................ix
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9 ;
`
`ConstitutionalProwsrons ......... ixi
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`1 6
`
`17
`18
`
`19
`
`Other Authorities .................................................................................................. X 5
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 2
`
`LEGALANALYSIS...................... 3
`A.
`Count I Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed Pursuant
`To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(1))(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter
`Jurisdiction Because There Has Never Been An Ailegation Of
`Infringement. .............................................................................................. 3
`
`8.
`
`Count H Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed Pursuant
`To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Because Plaintiff’s Allegations Under
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 Are Insufficient As A Matter of
`Law. ..................................................................................... . ...................... 8
`
`I)
`
`The unfair prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 does not
`apply ................................................................................................. 9
`
`21)
`
`b)
`
`Even if Defendant were seeking to capture the term surfskate
`as a trademark, it would be permitted to do so by weii-
`established law ........................ . .............................. 9
`
`In seeking to enjoin Defendant‘s use of the term surfskate,
`Plaintiffs second cause of action under Cat. Bus. & Prof.
`
`Code §l7200 is preempted by the Lanharn Act... 13
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15—CV—01348—AJG
`
`i
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15—cv—01348-AG-DFM Document 60-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page30f3?‘ PagelD #:1258 1
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`The frauduient prong Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §17200 does not
`appEy........ ....................................................................................... l6
`The advertising prong ofCal. Bus. & Prof Code §l7200 does
`
`not apply ............................................. 19
`Count HI Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed
`Pursuant To Fed. R Civ. P 12(b)(6) Because The Plaintiff’s
`Allegations Under Caiifornia Common Law of Unfair Competition
`Are Insufficient As A Matter of Law. ...................................................... 21
`
`C.
`
`i
`i
`
`D.
`
`Count IV Of The Amended Compiaint Must Be Dismissed,
`Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter
`Jurisdiction Because An Action For Cancellation Cannot Be
`Advanced Without A Separate Claim Of Trademark Infringement ........ 23
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 25 3
`
`In.
`
`l
`2
`3 g
`
`g
`4 i
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`
`I2
`
`13
`
`14 i
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 3
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUP?ORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV-01348—AJG
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Gas? 8: 15—cv-01348-AG—DFM Document 60—1 Fiied 06724116 Page 4 of 37 Page 1D #: 1259 E
`
`g EE
`
`1
`
`2 .
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`3 Cases
`
`4 3
`5 E Aetna Life Ins. Co. ofHarzfird, Conn. v. Haworth,
`E
`300 U.S. 227 (1937)..............................................................................
`
`AirWair International Ltd. v. Schultz,
`84 F.Supp3d. 943 (ND. Cal. 2015) ......................................................
`
`6 7
`
`
`
`8 E
`
`9 Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc,
`10
`640 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 201 1)
`..................... . .................................. 17
`
`1} Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc,
`12 g
`133 S. Ct. 721 (2013)............................................................................ 6
`
`13 American Automobile Ass ’n v. American Automobile Owner ES Ass ’22,
`14 E
`216 Cal. 125 (1932) ............................................................................ 22
`
`15 Apple , Inc. v. Psystar Corp,
`16
`586 F.Supp.2d 1190 (NB. Cal. 2008) ................................................ 23
`
`17 Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp,
`13
`546 US. 500 (2006) .............................................................................. 3
`
`
`19 Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Puoz’ic Service Comm ’n,
`20 ,
`461 US. 375 (1933) ............................................................................ 15
`21 EAureflame Corp. v. Pho Hoa Phat], Inc,
`22 i
`375 F. Supp.2d 950 (N.D. Cai. 2005) .................................................... 8
`23 EE
`EEBank ofthe W. v Superior Court
`24 ,1
`2Ca1. 41112543992) ............................ 20, 22
`251E
`
`1E Bom‘ro Boat, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc,
`26 ii
`489 U.S. 141 (1989)...................................................................... 14,19
`27 EB!
`28 EEBrown v. Hook
`[E
`79 Ca1.App.2d 781 (1947) .............. . ............................. . ............... 21, 22
`EE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15-CV-01348-AJG
`1
`
`H
`
`iii
`
`E
`
`

`

`Case 8:1S—cv—01348-AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06l24l16 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #1260
`E
`
`Bruce Winston Gem Corp. v. Harry Winston, Inc,
`2010 WL 3629592 .............................................................................. 24
`
`1 2
`
`3 i
`4 3 Cal-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co,
`5 i
`20 C4th, 163 (1999) ............................................................................. 9
`6 1 Celebrity Chefs Tour, LLC v, Macy ’s, Inc,
`7 l
`16 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (SD. Cal. 2014) ...........................s.................... 20
`8 l
`Cisco Sys, Inc. v. Alberta Telecommunications Research Ctr.,
`9 E 892 F. 811131126: 1266 (NB. C211. 2012) ....................................................... 5, 6
`
`10 Cisco Sysa, Inc. v. Alberta Telecommunications Research Ctr.,
`11
`538 FedApr. 894 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................... 5
`
`12 Cigarettes Cheaper! v. State Board ofEqualization,
`13
`2011 WL2560248 ................................................................................ 9
`
`14 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc,
`15
`505 {5.3. 504 (1992) ............................................................................ 13
`
`16 Clark 12. City ofLakewood
`17
`269 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 6
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`Committee on Children ’s Television v. General Foods Corp,
`35 C3d 197 (1957) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Fidelity Appraisal Co. v. Federal Appraisal Co,
`217 Cal.307(1933),...........,.M.......‘...‘,‘.......E.,...5 .............................. 22
`
`Flast 12. Cohen,
`392 U.S. 83 (E968) ............ 4
`
`25 Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co,
`785 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................ 25
`
`
`
`26
`
`28
`
`27 Garlock Sealtng Technologies LLC v NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. ,
`148 Cal App 4th 937 (2007} ................................................................. 7
`
`1 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV—01348-AJG
`iv
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15-CV-01348-AG-DFM DocumentSO—l Fiied 06124116 PageeofS?’ Page ID #:1261
`
`Gibson v. World Savings & Loan Assn,
`103 Cal. App4th, 1291 (2002) ..................................... 13
`
`1
`5
`
`Goodyear ’6' Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co,
`128 U.S. 598 (1888) ............................................................................ 21
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. H. Rosenthal C0,,
`246 F.Supp. 724 (D.Minn. 1965) ............... 11
`
`Green Products Co. v. Black Flags Brands LLC,
`2010 WL 3910336 (N.D.Ca1. 2010) .................................................... 8
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`
`E Gross v. Symantec Corp,
`10 f
`2012WL3116158 (ND. C211. 2012) .................................................. 17
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc,
`859 F. Supp. 20 1067 (NB. €211. 2012) .............................................. 20
`
`Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys, LLC,
`2015 WL 3377662 ............................................................................. 16
`
`15
`16 Homemakers, Inc. v. The Chicago Homefor the Friendless
`169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) (7Th Cir. 1971) ................................................... 23
`
`17
`
`18 Hoyt Heater Co. v. Hoyt
`68 Cal.App.2d 523 (1945) .................................................................. 22
`
`19
`
`20 E Imagelz'ne, Inc. v. CafePress.com, Inc,
`21 i
`2011 WL 1322525 (CD. C611. 2011) .................................................... 7
`
`Ingrid & Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mine, LLC,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (ND. C611. 2014) ................................................ 19
`
`In Re Minnetonka, Inc,
`3 U.S.P.Q.2d1711,1987 WL124303(TTAB 1987).1....1,6.M,1., ........ 12
`
`In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig,
`183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 2
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`27
`
`E
`28 3
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15—CV-01348—AJG
`V
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`8:15—CV-01348—AG—DFM Document 60‘} Fiied 06i24/16 Page 7 of 37 Page ED #:1262
`
`
`
`“mm...meymwmwwmmwmmmmmwmwvw
`
`In re Tobacco II cases
`46 C2114th 298 (2009) .......................................................................... 16
`
`K—Laz‘h, Div. of Tree Island Wire (USA), Inc. v. Davis Wire Corp,
`15 F.Supp.2d 952 (CD. Cal. 1998) .......................... . ........................... 6
`
`Kellogg v. Nat’l Biscuit Ca,
`305 U.S.111(1938)............................. ............................................... 10
`
`Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. (If/1m,
`511 US. 375 (1994) .............................................................................. 3
`
`LA. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Technolagies, Inc,
`114 F. Suppfld 852 (ND. Cal. 2015) ........................................... 16, 19
`
`LTInr’I Ltd. v. Shuflle Master, Inc,
`8 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (D. Nev. 2014)..................................................... 18
`
`Mcmsofl Corp. v. Lindowscom, Inc,
`64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1397, 2002 WL 31499324 .......................................... 12
`
`‘Minx Inf’l Inc. 12. Club House Creations Inc.)
`
`2016 WL 878479 (CD. Cai. 2016) ...................................................... 2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`E i
`
`1 ! i
`
`1
`
`)—A4.50.18)
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1sE
`
`Monarch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Ca,
`70 Cal.App.4th 1197 (1999) ................................................................ 13
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1
`
`Monster Daddy, LLC v. Monster Cable Products, Inc,
`2013 WL 5467854 .............................................................................. 24
`
`NU Science Corp. v. EFASIeam.com
`2004 WL 1918888‘(N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................. 22
`
`0 ’Connor v. Uber Techs, Inc,
`
`58 F.Supp.3d 989 (ND. Cal. 2014) .............................................. 16, 17
`
`O’Hagz'ns, Inc. v. M5 Streel Mfg, Inc,
`276 F.Supp.2d 1020 (ND. Cal. 2003) .......................... . ....................... 6
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUFPORT OF MOTION TO DlSMISS — 8:15—CV-01348—AJG
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15-cv—01348-AG‘DFM Document 60-1 Fiied 0694/16 Page80f37 Page ED #:1263
`
`E
`E
`E
`E
`
`7
`
`5
`E
`
`1 Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show. Inc,
`2
`97 F.2d 847, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 147i (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................ 11
`
`3 Palomares v. Bear Stearns Residential Morigoge Corp,
`4
`2008 WL 686683 (SD. CaE. 2008) ....................................................... 7
`5 RE/Wlnrernational, Inc. v. Trendsetter Realty, LLC'
`6
`655 F.Supp.2d 679 (so Tex. 2009) .................................................. 24
`
`7 Rhoades v. Avon Products
`8
`504 F.3d 1151(9‘h Cir. 2009) ....... 25
`
`9 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp,
`10
`331 U.S.218, 230 ............................................................................... 13
`
`l 1
`
`E
`
`Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch, Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cty.,
`343 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................... 7
`
`Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Briley,
`207 F.2d 519 (5th Cir. 1953) ............................................................... 10
`
`ISinger Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co,
`163 US. 169 (1896)............................................................................ 10
`
`Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc,
`17 C4th 553 (1998) 9
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor USA, Inc,
`800 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (ED. Cal. 2011) ................ . ............................... 4
`
`Thornnill Pub. Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp,
`594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979)
`
`.............. 4
`
`Topp-Cola Co. v. Cola-Cola Co,
`314 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1963) ............................................................... 24
`
`TransFresh Corp. v. Ganzerla (5’: Assoc, Inc,
`862 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (NI). Cal. 2012) ........................................ 17. 18
`
`12
`13
`
`1“ g
`15
`16
`
`2i
`
`17
`
`18
`
`£9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTXON T0 DISMISS - 8:15-CV—OI348—AJG
`
`Vii
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15—cv-Ol348-AG—DFM Decument 60-1 Filed 061’24116
`
`13age 9 013? Page 10 #11264
`
`US. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofionz’
`2013 WL 6844756 .............................................................................. 16
`
`E Vallavisra Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc,
`657 F.Supp.2d 1132 (N.{).Cal.2008) .................................................. 20
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 18
`
`VP Racing Fuels, Inc. v. General Petroleum Corporation
`ZOIOWL1611398(E.D.Ca1.2010)...” ............................................. 17
`
`Wham-0, Inc. v. Manley Toys, Ltd,
`2009WL6361387 ....................... 1 ........... . .................................... 21,23
`
`Wiiiiamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp,
`208 F.3d 1144 (9th 6122000) ............... 14
`
`ZL Techs, Inc. v. Gartner, Inc,
`2009WL3706821.....................,...1....,.....,.......,,, ................................ 19
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTEON TO DISMISS - 8:15~CV-01348—AJG
`
`viii
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6 '
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17 g
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`i1
`
`

`

`C se 8:15—cv—01348—AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06124116 Page 10 of37 PagelD
`#:1265
`
`E
`
`}
`1
`2 i Statutes
`
`LABLE OF STATUTES
`
`Federal
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127............................ 14
`
`15 U.S.C. § 105114
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1064................................................................................. 15
`
`State
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 14272 ......................................................... 14
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§17280 ..... 1,3,8,9,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`11
`
`7
`8 E
`9 1
`10 I
`12
`1
`
`1
`
`.
`
`13’ Rules
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`
`.
`Fed. R. End. 201 .................................................................................. 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9............. .............................................................. 17,18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) .......................................................... 1, 3, 7, 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................. 1, 8, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
`
`20 l
`21 5
`22 Constitutional Provisions
`
`........................................ 4
`
`23
`
`US. Const, art I, § 8, 01.3 .................................................................. 13
`
`24 1
`
`US. Const, art VI, 01.2. ...................................................................... 14
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15-CV-01348‘AJG
`
`ix
`
`26E
`27]
`28%
`
`l 9 5
`
`

`

`d Ii1 I2i
`
`7se 8:15—cv—01348—AG—DFM Document 60-1 Filed 06l24/16 Page 11 of 37 Page 30
`
`#21266
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`
`
`Frau: Geneticism t0 T‘sadelnafli Sigujficauce:Becgflrazctinmhc Dc
`
`
`Facts Sgggfigm Meaning [geek-fine, M Levy, 95 Trademark Rptr.
`1197, 1198 (2005) ............................................................................... 12
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV—01348-AJG
`X
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12,
`
`13
`
`

`

`C] so 8:15-cv-01348—AG—DFM Document 60—1 Fiied GEE/24.116 Page 12 of 37 Page ID
`
`#:1267
`
`Defendant, SurtSkate Industries, LLC, files this renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`following Plaintiff’s now filed Amended Complaint, in which counts one and two are
`
`revised, and new counts three and four are added. The Amended Complaint must be
`
`dismissed because there is no subject matter jurisdiction and no legitimate ciaim exists.
`
`In particular, Defendant moves to dismiss the first and fourth causes of action of
`
`the Plaintiff” s, Carver International, Inc. ’3, Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule
`
`2
`
`12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the second and third causes of
`
`action of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
`
`IRules of Civil Procedure. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to prohibit
`
`Defendant from using an alleged generic term in Defendant’s marketing, where
`
`Plaintiff has and asserts no ownership rights to the term. Plaintiff alleges that it is
`
`under a threat of an infringement allegation (which it has never been) and asserts that
`
`Defendant’s use of the aileged generic term somehow violates California’s unfair
`
`competition laws, even though under federal trademark law, generic terms are free for
`
`all to use however they desire.
`
`As grounds for its motion, Defendant submits that: (i) the court iacks subject
`
`l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23?
`
`: matterjurisdiction because there is and has never been a case or controversy; (ii)
`
`24
`
`Plaintiff 5 claims for unfair competition (under both Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §l7200
`
`and common law) are outside the legal reach of California’s unfair competition laws;
`
`l l l
`
`25:
`
`26
`
`and (iii) a claim for cancellation of a federal trademark registration cannot be
`
`MEMORANDUM or LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTiON T0 DISMISS - 8:]5—CV-01348-AJG
`
`9359231
`
`Page 1 of 26
`
`i i
`
`272
`
`28
`
`

`

`fee 8:15-cv—01348—AG—DFM Document 60—1 Filed 061213,!16 Page 13 of 37 Page ID
`
`
`#31268
`
`maintained absent an allegation of trademark infringement.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The relevant facts of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff in its Amended
`
`Complaint, are as follows:
`
`i.
`
`The Plaintiff is in the business of marketing and seliing skateboards.
`
`
`(Amended Comgiaint at 1i 1).
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is also in the business of marketing and selling skateboards (ii
`
`at '1] 28).
`
`3.
`
`On August 24, 2010, Defendant obtained United States Federal
`
`Registration of the following design trademark (id; at 111] 4, 27, Ex. P, Q):
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The mark is described by the US Patent and Trademark Office in the
`
`Certificate of Registration as being comprised of a stylized, sweeping letter "S" above
`
`the word “SURFSKATE” written in a stylized font.‘ (I_d. at 1111 4, 27, Ex. P, Q).
`
`5.
`
`The term “surfskate” is also used by other companies.
`
`
`(I_d_; at 11 2).
`
`1 The Court may consider the registration as it is inciuded as an exhibit to the
`
`Complaint. See lying};i313.Ting/g; V. (Ilnb iiouse Creations loo, No.
`215CV05645CASi’LAX, 2016 WL 878479, at *2 (CD. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016) (“A court
`may [] consider exhibits submitted with or alleged in the complaint and matters that
`
`may be judiciaiiy noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.”) (citing In re
`
`§iiiggg3gm§§rgg§il.iics inc. 8533;; Litigu 133 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)).
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW iN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-Cv-01348-AJG
`
`935923.]
`
`Page 2 of 26
`
`l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`i4
`
`i5
`
`16
`
`i7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`g
`E
`
`E
`
`
`
`se 8:15—cv-01348~AG—DFM Document 60-1 Fiied 06124116 Page 14 of 37 Page ID
`#:1269
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 2, 2015, it “received ‘cease and
`
`l
`
`I
`
`2
`
`g desist’ correspondence from an authorized distributor of Defendant demanding that it
`3
`i
`4 Eimmediateiy cease all use of the term ‘surfskate.”’ (Li. at 1] 6).
`5
`7.
`On August 24, 2015, Flaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.
`
`(S_ee Dkt. No. i),
`
`and on June 10, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint (See Dkt. No. 57). The
`
`6 7
`
`8 , Amended Complaint contains four causes of action: (i) Declaratory Judgment; (ii)
`
`9 I ViolationofCal.Bus&Prof.Code§ 17200etseq;(iii)CaliforniaCommonLaw
`
`10
`
`11 g Unfair Competition; and (iv) Cancellation of Defendant’s federai trademark
`
`12
`i3
`14
`
`{5
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`registration for the design trademark.
`
`(I_d_._).
`
`ll.
`
`LEGAL ANALYSIS
`
`A. Count I Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed
`Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 1269(1) For Lack Of Subject
`Matter Jurisdiction Because There Has Never Been An
`
`Atlegation Of Infringement.
`
`As Stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, “Federal courts are courts
`
`of limited jurisdiction [and they] possess only that power authorized by Constitution
`
`
`and statute.” igokkonen v. imrdiggLifginLCo. of Am, 511 us. 375, 377 (1994).
`
`21
`22
`23 As the Court has further stated “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this
`
`24
`
`limited jurisdiction and the burden of estabiishing the contrary rests upon the party
`
`asserting jurisdiction.” Q The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter
`
`25
`26
`
`27 { jurisdiction “may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage
`i
`
`28 3 in the litigation, even after trial and the entry ofjudgment.” {grown V. Y&H Corp...
`'
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15—CV-01348-AJG
`
`935923.:
`
`Page 3 of 26
`
`

`

`se 8:15-cv-01348-AG—DFM Document 60—1 Filed 0634/16 Page 15 of 37 Page ED
`#:1270
`
`546 US. 500, 506, (2006) (citation omitted) (adding that courts “have an independent
`
`obligation to determine Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists”); see Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`12(h)(3). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “may either attack
`
`the allegations of the complaint or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’ attacking the
`
`existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Ihornhili Pubgggzwyfignglfehhgu
`
`Eigegjlorp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Faced with a factuai attack on
`
`
`subject matter jurisdiction, {flopggsump tive truthfiiiness attachesutoxglaititiiils
`
`afiegationg and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial courtg
`
`1 1
`
`from evaiuating for itself the merits ofjurisdictional claims”) (alteration to original)
`
`(emphasis added). The Plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish that jurisdiction
`
`’ does in fact exist. id,
`
`A declaratory relief action must invoive an actual “case or controversy.” §§e
`
`figmggoheu, 392 US. 83, 95—96 (1968). in a declaratory judgment action, “Subject
`
`matter jurisdiction “thus depends on the existence of a substantiai controversy,
`
`between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to
`
`
`warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Tech. Licensinn Corp. v. "l‘eclmicoiol
`
`USAglncw 800 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1120 (ED. Cal. 2011) (quotations omitted) (citing
`
`
`Aetna Life ins. C0. ofi'iai'tl‘ord, C‘omggjiawortii, 300 U.S. 227, 240—41 (1937). In
`
`order to have subject matter jurisdiction, there must be a case or controversy.
`
`The relevant allegations to the first cause of action for declaratory relief are
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15-CV-fll348-A3G
`
`935923.:
`
`Page 4 of 26
`
`\oocuoxmnwmw
`NMNMNy—AHu—uwp—ap—amwww
`
`

`

`Ci[:e8:15—cv—01348—AG—DFMDocument60—1Filed06124116Page160137Page10
`
`l
`
`#:1271
`
`contained1n paragraphs 6 and 32 of the Amended Complaint and rotate to an alleged
`
`cease and desist” correspondence. Despite the allegations however, Plaintiff has not
`
`produced such correspondence and Defendant has never (1) alleged that the Plaintiffrs
` violating its trademark rights; or (ii) demanded that the Plaintiff cease all use of the
`
`term surfskate. As evidenced by the Affidavit of Defendant s President, Colin
`
`Nwt
`
`Defendant has never sent, nor authorized the sending of, any form of cease
`
`and desist correspondence to the Plaintiff. (Affidavit of Colin Newton (“Newton
`
`Aff.”), ‘5] 2). Furthermore, Defendant is unaware of any infringement of its trademark
`
`rights by the Plaintiff. (id. 11 3). Accordingly, Defendant does not demand, nor has it
`
`ever demanded, that the Plaintiff cease using the term surfskate. Because Defendant is
`
`not alleging that the Plaintiff is violating its trademark rights, there is no case or
`
`controversy. Plaintiff is under no imminent threat by Defendant, and Plaintiff’s first
`
`cause of action must therefore be dismissed.
`
`Plaintiff now contends that even if such alleged correspondence does not exists,
`
`Defendant has refused to execute a covenant not to sue and that this creates a
`
`substantial controversy. The failure however, to provide a covenant not to sue does no
`
`create a case or controversy. See Cisco Svs. inc. v. Alberta Telecommunications
`
` 9359231
`
`3.121.181? Ctr, 892 F. Supp.2d i226, 1233 (NB. Cal. 2012) (granting motion to
`
`dismiss notwithstanding defendant’s unwillingness to enter into a covenant not to sue),
`
`
`1111113, £___sm1flfggs_{111: v Alberta Telecommunications Rosean:11Cn., 538
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15-CV-61348-AJG
`
`Page 5 of 26
`
`i i i l
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`: se 8:15—cv—01348—AG—DFM Document EEG-t Fiied 06124116 Page 17 of 3? Page ID
`;
`#21272
`
`
`FedAppx. 894 (Fed. Cir. 2013). At the district court stated in Cisco