Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA758595
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/15/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92063912
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Surfskate Industries LLC
`
`SURFSKATE INDUSTRIES LLC
`614 S FEDERAL HIGHWAY , STE 300
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
`UNITED STATES
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`William E. hilton
`
`william.hilton@gesmer.com, trademarks@gesmer.com,
`nieve.anjomi@gesmer.com
`
`/William E. Hilton/
`
`07/15/2016
`
`92063912_Brief.pdf(155414 bytes )
`92063912_ExhibitA.pdf(2474558 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CARVER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SURFSKATE INDUSTRIES, LLC.
`
`Respondent.
`
`vvvvvvvvww
`
`U.S. Reg. No. 4,977,027
`Cancellation No. 921’0639 l 2
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUSPEND FOR CIVIL ACTION
`
`Respondent, Surfskate Industries, LLC, hereby opposes Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend
`
`in Cancellation No. 92063912 concerning Reg. No. 4,977,027, Registered June 14, 2016.
`
`Petitioner has made no motion to consolidate this proceeding with that of Cancellation No.
`
`92/062088 for Registration No. 3,839,107, which was tiled August 21, 2015. Respondent
`
`opposes consolidation of the two canceilation petitions as wetl as the rnotion 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 inark
`
`reprinted below inciudes 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 Federal court action, Carver
`
`
`International Inc. V. Surfskate Industries. LLC, Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-01348-AG-DFM (CD.
`
`9389761
`
`

`

`Cai. 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 ofa stay in the present
`
`Canceilation 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 canceiiation of Reg. No. 3,839,107 should aiso then be dismissed because no
`
`infringement allegation Wiil remain at issue in the Federai court action. S_'e_e Wham—O Inc. V.
`
`Manley Toys, Ltd, No. CV 08—07830 CBM SSX, 2009 WL 6361387 at *3, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d i750
`
`(citing Homemakers, inc. V. The Chicago Home for the Friendiess, 169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 262,
`
`263 (7th Cir.l97l) (per curiam) (hoiding that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine
`
`cancellation of a trademark if there is no independent ciaim 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 vaiid and
`
`protectabie right to the term that it seeks to have Respondent enjoined from using. Such claims
`
`must fail as a matter of law. See Kellogggo. V. National Biscuit Co, 59 S.Ct. 109, 122, 83
`
`L.Ed. 73, 39 U.S.P.Q. 296 (1938) (“Sharing in the goodwiil of an article unprotected by patent or
`
`trade—mark is the exercise of a right possessed by ali — and in the free exercise of which the
`
`9389761
`
`

`

`consuming public is deepiy 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 Civii Action is therefore
`
`futile, and is at best premature.
`
`Dated: July 15, 2016
`
`GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
`
`Attorney for the Respondent
`Surfskate Industries, LLC
`1.»,
`
`By:
`
`5,?{rw/‘i’f/f {W
`
`fig/M,
`
`William E. Hilton
`
`William.hilton@gesrner.corn
`40 Broad Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: (617) 350—6800
`Facsimile: (617) 350-6878
`
`CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT AND SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on .IuIy 15, 2016, I filed this document electronicaliy with the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board and served a copy of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUSPEND FOR CIVIL
`ACTION upon Petitioneris counsel:
`
`THOMAS J. SPEISS, III (SEN 200949)
`STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, PC.
`100 Wilshire Bivd., 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 US. Mail.
`
`f? c /” X/Z/
`
`WQ/ii/
`William E. Hilton
`
`93397611
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CARVER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SURFSKATE INDUSTRIES, LLC.
`
`Respondent.
`
`V'Vvvvvvvvv
`
`U.S. Reg No. 459775027
`Cancellatien N0. 92/0639I2
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`TO RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND FOR CIVIL ACTION
`
`938966.E
`
`

`

`Cas SElS—CV—01348-AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06/241116 Page 1 of 3? Page {D #:1258
`
`nieve.anjomi@gesmer.com
`GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
`
`93 58 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203
`Beverly H1115, CA 90212
`Telephone: (617) 350-6800
`Facsimile: (617) 350—6878
`
`WILLIAM E. HILTON (Pro Hac Vice)
`(Wil1iam.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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`SURFSKATE INDUSTRIES, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
` NIEVE ANIOMI (SBN 219299)
`
` I
`
`. CARVER ENTERNA’I‘IONAL, INC, Case No; 8:15-cv—01348-AG—DFM
`a Cali ferni a Cerperetien,
`
`‘
`,
`P1a1nt1ff,
`
`The Hon. Andrew 3. Guiiferd
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
`VS'
`SLssr‘Si‘:AI”IA: menarwe m: a; SUPPORT OF MOTION TO mswnss
`F iericia Limiteti Liabiiiiy Company,
`é PURSUANT TO FED. R CIV. P.
`12(b)(i) AND 12(b)(6)
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Defendant(S).
`
`Amended CompEaint Fiied: June 10,
`
`2016
`
`Triai Date: None
`
`27-
`
`28.
`1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV-01348-AJG
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15—cv-01348—AG-DFM Document 60-1 Fiieci 06l24l16 PageZofS? Page§D#:1257
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`E
`
`3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ i
`
`4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................. iii
`
`Cases ................................................................................................................... iii
`
`Statutes ................................................................................
`
`Roles
`
`.
`........................ IX
`
`.............................. ix
`
`E
`
`I
`
`Constitutional Provisions .................................................................................... ix
`
`Other Authorities .................................................................................................. X
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 2 .
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ . ........... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Count I Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed Pursuant
`To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter
`Jurisdiction Because There Has Never Been An Ailegation Of
`Infringement
`............................................................. 3
`
`Count II Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed Pursuant
`To Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(i3)(6) Because Plaintiff’s Allegations Under
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 Are Insufficient As A Matter of
`Law ............................................... 8
`
`l)
`
`The unfair prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 does not
`apply ................................................................................................. 9
`
`a)
`
`Even if Befendant were seeking to capture the term surfskate
`as a trademark, it would be permitted to do so by well—
`established law ....................... . ............................... 9
`
`b)
`
`In seeking to enjoin Defenriant‘s use of the term surfskate,
`
`‘2
`
`Code §l7200 is preempted by the Lanham Act... 13
`
`PlaintiffssecondcauseofactionunderCai.Bus.&Prof.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15—CV—0i348—AJG
`
`i
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`rump—pa
`HP“
`
`“~3on
`\000
`
`[\J O
`
`NNNN#UJNW
`
`NMONLn
`
`NMDON
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15—CV—01348'AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 Of 3? Page ID #:1258
`
`i
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 V
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`1 5
`
`I6
`
`17
`
`i8
`
`i9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`E
`The fraudulent prong Cai. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 does not
`appiyt...,..... ..................................................................................... 16E
`The advertising prong of Cai. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 does
`not apply ......................................................................................... 19
`Count 311 Of The Amended Comptaint Must Be Dismissed,
`Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Because The Plaintiff’s
`Aliegations Under Caiifornia Common Law of Unfair Competition
`Are Insufficient As A Matter of Law. ...................................................... 21
`
`Count IV Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Bismissed,
`Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Sub} ect Matter
`Jurisdiction Because An Action For Canceilation Cannot Be
`Advanced Without A Separate Claim Of Trademark Infringement ........ 23
`
`C.
`
`D,
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 25
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15-CV—91348—AJG
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Gas?8:15—cv—01348—AG-DFM Document 60-1 FiEed 06/24116 Page 4 of 37 Page ED #:1259
`
`: Aetna Life Ins Co ofHarflord, Conn v. Haworth
`300 U S 227 (1937).............................................................................. 4
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`AirWair International Lid. v. Schultz,
`84 F.8upp3d. 943 (ND. Cal. 2015) ...................................................... 8
`
`Allergen, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc,
`640 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...............................................
`
`17
`
`
`
`l
`
`\DOO‘JOMaD‘UJNp—J
`
`10
`
`£1 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc,
`
`12 E
`
`133 S. Ct. 721 (2013)............................................................................ 6
`
`13 American Automobile Ass ’31 v. American Automobile Owner ’3 Ass ’12,
`14 i
`216 Cai. 125 (1932) ............................................................................ 22
`i
`15 } Apple , Inc. v. Psystar Corp,
`16 i
`586 F.Supp.2d 1190 (NI). Cai. 2008)................................................ 23
`17 E Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp,
`
`18 E
`
`546 US. 500 (2006) .............................................................................. 3
`
`19 Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Comm ’n,
`20 i
`461 U.S. 375 (1933) ............................................................................ 15
`
`21 E Aureflame Corp. v. Pho Hoe Phat I, Inc,
`22 E
`375 F.Supp.2d 950 (ND. Cal. 2005) .................................................... 8
`
`1
`
`23 ,
`
`5
`
`iii
`
`
`
`EEBank ofthe W. v. Superior Court
`24 E
`2 Cal. 4&2254u992)
`..................... , ................................ 20, 22
`25 lgBonitoBoat Inc v Thunder CrafiBoats, Inc,
`
`489U.S.141(1989)...................................................................... 14,19
`
`26 g
`27 ’
`28 EBrown v. Hook
`3
`79Ca1.App.2€1781(1947) ......................... 21,22
`I MEMORANDUM OF LAW iN SUPPGR? OF MOTION TO DISNHSS - 8:15-CV-0i348-AJG
`
`

`

`1
`
`1
`
`R
`
`Case;8:15—cv-01348-AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06/24l16 Page 5 01‘37 Page ID #:1260
`1
`
`Bruce Winston Gem Corp. v. Harry Winston, Inc,
`2010 WL 3629592 .............................................................
`
`........... 24
`
`,
`
`
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4 : Col-Tech Communications, Inc. 12. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co,
`5 c
`20 C4th, 163 (1999) ............................................................................. 9
`i
`5 Celebrity Chefs Tour, LLC v. Macy ’s, Inc,
`7 E
`16 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (SD. C31. 2014)
`
`........................................... 20
`
`8 1
`9
`
`Cisco 532s. Inc. V. Alberta Telecommunications Research C31,
`892 F. Supp.2d 1266 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ....................................................... 5, 6
`
`10 Cisco 8315., Inc. v. Alberta Telecommunications Research Cir,
`11
`538 Fed.Appx. 894 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................... 5
`
`12 Cigarettes Cheaperl v. State Board ofEqualization,
`13
`2011WL2560248 ................ 9
`
`14 Cipollone v. Liggert Group, Inc,
`15
`505 US. 504 (1992) ............................................................................ 13
`
`16 Clark v. City ofLakewood
`17
`269 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 6
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Committee on Children ’s Television v. General Foods Corp,
`35 C3d 197 (1957) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Fidelity Appraisal Co. v. Federal Appraisal Co,
`217 Ca1. 307 (1933) 22
`
`21
`22
`23 Flost v. Cohen,
`392 US. 83 (1968)........................... _. ......................
`
`4
`
`24
`
`25 Gobrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co,
`785 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1986) .............. 25
`
`26
`
`27 Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies, Corp,
`148 CaLAppAth 937 (2007)....M.......... ................................................. 7
`
`1 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SU?PORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15—CV-01348—AJG
`1
`iv
`
`E1
`
`28
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15—cv—01348~AG-DFM Document 60—1 Fiied 06124/16 Page60f37 PageED #:1261 I
`
`Gibson v. World Savings & Loan Assn,
`103 Cal. App4th, 1291 (2002) ........................................................... 13
`
`Goodyear ’3 Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co,
`128 (LS. 598 (1888) .............................. 21
`
`Goodyear Tire cf: Rubber Co. v. H Rosenrhal Ca,
`246 F.Supp. 724 (DMinn. 1965) ........................................................ 11
`
`1 Green Products Co. v. Black Flags Brands LLC,
`2010WL3910336 (ND. C31. 2010) .................................................... 8
`
`Gross v. Symantec Corp,
`2012WL3116158 (ND. Cal. 2012) .................................................. 17
`
`Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.)
`859 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (NJ). C211. 2012) .............................................. 20
`-
`Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys., LLC,
`2015 WL3377662 ................................................. , ............................ 16
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16 Homemakers, Inc. v. We Chicago Homefor the Friendless
`169 13.8.1312. (BNA) (71h Cir. 1971) ................................................... 23
`
`17
`
`18 Hoyt Heater Co. 12‘ Hay:
`68 Cal.App.2d 523 (1945) .................................................................. 22
`
`19
`
`20 1 Imageline, Inc. v. CafePress. com, Inc,
`21
`2011 WL 1322525 (C.D.Ca1. 2011) .................... , ............................... 7
`
`Ingrid & Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mne, LLC,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (Ni). Cal. 2014) ................................................ 19
`
`In Re Minnetonka, Inc,
`3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1711, 1987 WL 124303 (TTAB 1987)......................... 12
`
`In re Silicon Graphics Inc. See. Litig,
`183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999)
`
`........................................................ 2
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV—01348—AJG
`V
`
`

`

`Cas 8:15-cv—01348—AG-DFM Document 60—1 Fiied 0624716 Page 7 of 3? Page ED #:1262
`
`1
`2
`
`In re Tobacco II cases
`46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) .......................................................................... 16
`
`3 K-Lath, Div. of Tree Island Wire (USA), Inc. v. Davis Wire Com,
`4
`15 F.Supp.2d 952 (CD. Cal. 1998) ............................................ . ......... 6
`
`5 Kellogg 1:. Nat? Biscuit Co,
`6
`305 ES. 111 (1938)............................................................................ 10
`
`7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm,
`8
`511 US. 375 (1994).............................................................................. 3
`
`9 LA. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc,
`10 g
`114 F. Suppfid 852 (ND. Cal. 2015) ........................................... 16, 19
`
`- LT Inr'l Ltd. v. Shufi‘le Master, Inc,
`8 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (D. Nev. 2014)..................................................... 18
`
`13 i
`I“ Microsoft Corp. v. Lindowscom, Inc,
`64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1397, 2002 WL 314993241.-..“.....,...............,...,,,,,,,, 12
`
`11
`
`12
`
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`[Minx Int’l Inc. v. Club House Creations Inc,
`2016 WL 878479 (CD. C31. 2016)
`
`18 Monarch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co,
`70 Cal.App.4‘h 1197 (1999)
`
`19
`
`20 Monster Daddy, LLC v. Monster Cable Products, Inc,
`21
`2013 WL 5467854
`
`............... 2
`
`........... 13
`
`24
`
`22 NU Science Corp. v. EFASteamcom
`23
`2004 WL 1918888'(ND. Cal. 2004) .................................................. 22
`
`24 O’Connor v. Uber Techs, inc,
`25
`58 F.Supp.3d 989 (ND. Cal. 2014) .............................................. 16, 17
`
`26 O’Hagins, Inc. 12. M5 Streel Mfg, Inc,
`27
`276 F.Supp.2d 1020 (ND. Cal. 2003) ..................... . ............................ 6
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUMOFLAWINSUPFORTOFMOTIONTOBISMISS-S:15-CV~01348—AJG
`
`vi
`
`E
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`8:15—CV—01348-AG-DFM Document 60-1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 8 of 37 Page ED #:1263 ,
`
`Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show, Inc,
`97 F.2d 847, 23 U‘S.P.Q.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................ 11
`
`Palomares v. Bear Sieams Residential Morigage Corp,
`2008 WL 686683 (SD. Cal. 2008) ....................................................... 7
`
`RE/MAXIniemational, Inc. v. Trendsetter Realty, LLC
`655 F.Supp.2d 679 (8.11 Tex. 2009) .................................................. 24
`
`Rhoades v. Avon Products
`
`504 F.3d 1151(9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 25
`
`Rice 12. Santa Fe Elevator Corp,
`331 US. 218,230 ............................ 13
`
`Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch, Dist. No. 205, Maricopa C02,
`343 F.3d 1036 (91h Cir. 2003)
`
`7
`
`Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Briley,
`207 F.2d 519 (5th Cir. 1953) .................. 10
`
`Singer Manufacturing Co. 1:. June Manufacturing Co,
`163 (is. 169 (1896)............................................................................ 10
`
`Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v1 Lucky Stores, Inc,
`17 C401 553 (1998) 9
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor USA, Inc,
`800 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (ED. C211. 2011) ................................................ 4
`
`Thornhill Pub. Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp,
`594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................ 4
`
`Topp-Cola Co. v. Cola-Cola Ca,
`314 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1963) ............................................................... 24
`
`TransFresh Corp. v. Ganzerla (E: Assoc, Inc,
`862 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (NB. Cai. 2012) ........................................ 17$ 18
`
`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
`
`
`
`1 i i
`
`1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMESS -— 8:15-CV—01348—AJG
`V1}
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`8:15-cv—01348—AG-DFN1 Document 60-1 iziied 06124116 Pagegofs‘f Page 1011:1264
`
`US. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofioni
`2013 WL 6844756
`
`.................................. 16
`
`Vallavisz‘a Corp. v: Amazon.com, Inc,
`657 F.Supp.2d 1132 (N.D.Ca1.2008) .................................................. 20
`
`Vess v. Ciba—Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 18
`
`VP Racing Fuels, Inc. v. General Petroleum Corporation
`2010 WL1611398(E.D.Ca1.2010) .................................................. 17
`
`1 Wham-O, Inc. v. Manley Toys, Ltd,
`2009 WL 6361387 .................................. , ..................................... 21, 23
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11 Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp,
`12
`208 F.3d 11449111 6122000) ............................................................ 14
`i3 1 ZL Techs, Inc. v. Gartner, Inez,
`14 1
`2009 WL 3706821 .............................. 19
`
`1516 1
`
`17 1
`
`18 1
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25 1
`26 1
`27 1
`28 1
`1 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15—CV-01348-AJG
`31:
`viii
`11
`
`

`

`se 8:15—cv—01348-AG-DFEV3 DocamentEfiO—l Filed 06l24f16 Page 10 01‘37 PageiD
`#:1265
`
`1
`
`i
`1
`2 Statutes
`
`TABLE OF STATUTES
`
`Federal
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127.......................... 14
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1064 .................... ,...................................... 15
`
`State
`
`Ca1.Bus.& i’rof. Code § 14272
`
`.................................................... 14
`
`Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code§ 17200 ..... 1, 3, 8, 9,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`
`13 Rules
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`
`.
`Fed. R. Evzd. 201 ................................. . ................................................ 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.9 ................................... 17,18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`1, 3, 7, 23
`
`1, 8, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
`
`20
`21 1
`22 i Constitutional Provisions
`23 .
`US. Const., art I, § 8, (21.3 .................................................................. 13
`
`.............................. 4
`
`US. Const, art VI, 01.2.. ....................... . ............................................. 14
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`
`27 l
`28 5.E
`E MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS — 8:15-CV-01348-AJG
`Ea
`
`ix
`
`a;
`
`

`

`! se 8:15-cv—01348—AG-DFM Decument 50—1 Fiéed {JG/24116 Page 11 of 37 Page ED
`#:1266
`
`
`
`
`
`Ezcto Segmdazfiy Mgafiim Decgtrmg, MEéE§fiE§§Q&§£E§E
`
`1197, 1198 (2005) ............................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV-01348—AJG
`X
`
`

`

`1 E
`
`39 8:15-CV—01348-AG-DFM Document 60—1 Fiied 061242’16 Page 12 Of 37 Page ID
`#:1267
`
`Defendant,SurfSkateIndustries,LLC,filesthisrenewedMotiontoDismiss
`
`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 claim exists.
`In particular, Defendant moves to dismiss the first and fourth causes ofaction of
`
`the Plaintiffs, Carver International, Inc’s, Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule
`
`:
`
`4
`
`5
`,6]
`
`8
`
`
`
`1: l l2(b)(l) ofthe Federal Ruies ofCivil Procedure, and the second and third causes of
`
`11
`
`action of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federai
`
`12 Rates of Civil Procedure. In its Amended Compiaint, Plaintiff seeks to prohibit
`
`i: EDefendant from using an alleged generic term in Defendant’s marketing, where
`
`15 Plaintiff has and asserts no ownership rights to the term. Plaintiff alleges that it is
`
`16
`under a threat of an infringement ailegation (which it has never been) and asserts that
`1: Defendant’s use ofthe alleged generic term somehow violates California’s unfair
`
`19
`
`:(1)
`
`22'
`
`competition iaws, even though under federal trademark law, generic terms are free for
`
`ail to use however they desire.
`
`As grounds for its motion, Defendant submits that: (i) the court iacks subject
`
`i i
`
`23 E matter jurisdiction because there is and has never been a case or controversy; (ii)
`:i E Plaintiff’s claims forunfair competition (underboth Cai. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200
`26 E and common law) are outside the legal reach ofCaiifornia’s unfair competition iaws;
`Z E and (iii) a eiairn for cancellation ofa federal trademark registration cannot be
`
`MEMORANDUM or LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - S:]5~CV—0}348-AJG
`
`935923.!
`
`Page I of 26
`
`

`

`se 8:15-cv-01348-AG-DFM Document 60-1 Filed 06124116 Page 13 of 37 Page 50
`#13268
`
`-
`
`imaintained 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:
`
`l
`
`i.
`
`The Plaintiff is in the business of marketing and selling skateboards.
`
`
`(Amended {Tompiaint at 1] l).
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is also in the business of marketing and selling skateboards (id,
`
`at ‘H 28).
`
`3.
`
`On August 24, 2010, Defendant obtained United States Federal
`
`R
`
`of the following design trademark (1d; at W 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.1 (id; at W 4, 27, Ex. P, Q).
`
`5.
`
`The term “serfskate” is also used by other companies.
`
`(131, at if 2).
`
`1 The Court may consider the registration as it is included as an exhibit to the
`Complaint. S_ee_ tyiinmgjfignjugimg Club House gigglions loo, No.
`2l5CV05645CASPLM, 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 judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.”) (citing in re
`
`Silicon (names inc. Seg,_.i..itigfl 183 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)).
`
`5
`
`MEMORANBUM OF LAW lN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DiSMiSS - 8:15~CV~01348-AJG
`
`9359215
`
`Page 2 of 26
`
`

`

`fee 8:15—cv-01348-AG—DFM Document 60-3. Fiied 86I24i16 Page 14 of 3? Page ID
`
`#:1269
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that on or about iuly 2, 2015, it “received ‘cease and
`
`desist’ correspondence from an authorized distributor ofDefendant demanding that it
`g immediately cease all use of the term ‘surfskate.”’ (1d; at 11 6).
`
`l
`
`7.
`
`On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.
`
`(_S__e_e Dkt. No. l),
`
`and on June 10, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint (See Dkt. No. 57). The
`
`l 2 3 4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8 Amended Complaint contains four causes of action: (i) Declaratory Judgment; (ii)
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Violation of Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq; (iii) California Common Law
`
`11 i Unfair Competition; and (iv) Cancellation of Defendant’s federal trademark
`
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`
`23 i
`
`registration for the design trademark.
`
`(I_d_.).
`
`1!.
`
`LEGAL ANALYSIS
`
`A. Count I Of The Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed
`Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Subject
`Matter Jurisdiction Because There Has Never Been An
`
`Allegation 0f 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.” Kokkonen v. gaggjflgfgi113. Co. ofAnr, 511 us. 375,377(3994).
`
`As the Court has fiirther stated “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause iies outside this
`
`l l
`
`24 [limited jurisdiction and the burden of estabiishing the contrary rests upon the party
`
`25
`26
`
`27
`
`asserting jurisdiction.” 1;; The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction “may he raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage
`
`28 .
`
`in the litigation, even after trial and the entry ofjudgment.” .i’ii‘igflaugh v. Y&H Celina
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW iN surronT OF MOTIoN TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV—61348-AJG
`
`935923.i
`
`Page 3 of 26
`
`

`

`5e 8:15—cV-01348—AG-DFM Document 60—1 Fited 06f24i16 Page 15 of 3? Page ID
`#1120
`
`\DOONJChm-h-UJNM
`MNNNNNMWWMMMb—tt—tp—Al—L
`
`546 U.S. 500, 506, (2006) (citation omitted) (adding that courts “have an independent
`
`
`obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists”); see FedRCivP.
`
`12(h)(3). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “may either attack
`
`the aiiegations of the compiaint or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’ attacking the
`
`
`existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Thornhill Pub. Co. V. Gen. Tel. &
`
`Eiecs. Crag, 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Faced with a factual attack on
`
`
`subject matter jurisdiction, Into presumptive trutiithiness attaches tompiaistiftk
`
`alga-gig}; and the existence of disputed material facts wiil not preclude the trial court
`
`from evaluating for itself the merits ofjurisdictional ciaims.”) (aiteration to original)
`
`(emphasis added). The Plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish that jurisdiction
`
`does in fact exist. 1g;
`
`A declaratory relief action must involve an actual “case or controversy.” _S_e_e
`
`Elast v. Cohen, 392 US. 83, 95—96 (1968). In a deciaratory judgment action, “Subject
`
`matter jurisdiction “thus depends on the existence of a substantial controversy,
`
`between parties having adverse iegal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to
`
`
`warrant the issuance of a deoiaratory judgment.” leghLLigensii'igi Corp. v. ’Feciiiijgoioi
`
`USAjjigg, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1 l 16, 1120 (ED. Cal. 2011) (quotations omitted) (citing
`
`Aetna Life Ins. Co. ofriartfogd. Conn. v. Hawortii, 300 U.S. 227, 246-41 (1937). in
`
`order to have subject matter jurisdiction, there must be a case or controversy.
`
`The reicvant ailegations to the first cause of action for declaratory relief are
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW EN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV—81348—AJG
`
`9359211
`
`Page 4 of 26
`
`

`

`Cl se 8:15—ev—01348—AG-DFM Document 60—1 Filed 06124i16 Page 15 of 37 Page EB
`#:12?1
`
`l i
`
`\OOOQQMLWNM
`
`NNNNNNNNNMH‘F—‘HHb—‘b—dhfifi—HMOOQCNM-RWNHONOOO‘JQNM-F—XWNV—‘CD
`
`contained1n paragraphs 6 and 32 of the Amended Complaint and relate to an alleged
`
`“cease and desist” correspondence. Despite the allegations however, Plaintiff has not
`
`produced such correspondence and Defendant has never (i) alleged that the Plaintiffis
`
`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
`
`Newton 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. ”), ‘H 2) Furthermore, DefendantIS unaware of any infringement of1ts 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 DefendantIS
`
`not alleging that the Plaintiffis violating its trademark rights, there15 no case or
`
`controversy Plaintiff13 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.
`
`
`
`S___ee Cisco Svs. inov Alberta Telecommunications
`
`Restareh Ct1., 892 F. Supp.2(i 1226, 1233 (NB. Cal. 2012) (granting motion to
`
`dismiss notwithstanding defendant 3 unwillingness to enter into a covenant not to sue),
`
`
`“£1,311.15 {fisce1Svs4.,. 31141;: v. Alberta Telecommumcatmns Resend {11,538
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - 8:15-CV—81348—AJG
`
`Page 5 of 26
`
`I I
`
`93591331
`
`

`

`se 8:15—cv—01348—AG—DFM Document 50—1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 17 of 3? Page ED
`#312}?
`
`
`Fed.Appx. 894 (Fed. Cir. 2013). At the district court stated in Cisco,
`
`[t]he jurisdictional inquiry is concerned with the facts that exist
`
`when the plaintiff originaily filed the complaint, and it‘there 7
`
`gas nigger controversv at the gig-g of filing, subsequent
`events cannot make sub} ect matter jurisdiction proper.
`
`V300~JChLh£5noDJha
`
`b9ha5303NJb3b3b3b)WMkww“rdP“w»w»wukm”a00~JChLn45U0h)h—CbMD00*4ChLn43U0b3hdc3
`
`
`
`I_d; at 1230 (emphasis added); see aisg {flittiagjng inc, V. M5 Steel Mfg“ Inc, 276
`
`F.Snpp.2d 1020, 1026 (NI). Cat. 2003) (granting motion to dismiss even though
`
`
`defendant was unwilling to enter into a covenant not sue); K—Lath, Div. of Tree Island
`
`flfliggm): inc. v, Davisfim, 15 F.Supp.2d 952, 960 (CD. Cal. 1998)
`
`(granting motion to dismiss despite a refilsal to waive a right to sue prior to filing the
`
`complaint). A party may not bring an action Without a basis, and then demand a
`
`covenant not to sue to maintain the action. The Plaintiff’s argument conflates the
`
`issues of standing (whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction when a case
`
`is filed) and mootness (whether a controversy that has been engaged, later becomes
`
`
`moot). SEQ Cindi v. Citgof i,,,ai<ew0od, 259 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2001), as
`
`amended (Aug. 15, 2001) (“Standing is determined by the f