We hold that the trial court erred in admitting the photographs and the accompanying declaration over the appellant’s hearsay and confrontation clause objections. Absent the photographs and content in the declaration, there is insufficient evidence to support the violation. Accordingly we reverse the judgment.

A copy of the ruling is here.

Aunt Joy’s sells cakes, cookies and chocolate-based confections from its Burbank store and website. Defendant is accused of selling cakes using the See’s trademarks, which cakes purportedly incorporated See’s Candy products. Defendant allegedly advertised its cakes as being “filled with Sees candy chips” and “dripping in Sees dark chocolate.” Plaintiff asserts causes of action for trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition and dilution. The case is Columbia Insurance Company v. Aunt Joy’s Cakes, Inc., CV10-5164 RGK (C.D. Cal. 2010).

The complaint, however, does not appear to provide sufficient information to pass a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. In 2007, the Supreme Court’s Twombly decision stated that under Rule 8(a)(2) a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). In 2009, the Supreme Court’s Iqbal decision expanded the application of Twombly to all civil cases. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). Thus, a complaint will be dismissed uner Rule 12(b)(6) if it fails to meet the Twombly pleading standard. See e.g. Anticancer, Inc. v. Xenogen Corp., 248 F.R.D. 278 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

The case is Kruse Technology Partnership v. Daimler AG, et al., SACV-10-1066 AG (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Everett alleges that in March of 2006 he sent the concept shots and script to a director’s agent at Endeavor, but heard nothing. He again claims to have sent the script to the same agent in 2007, and this time it made it to a television agent, but Endeavor declined to represent Everett because of its representation of other talent working on a similar concept. Everett alleges that “Endeavor provided Everett’s ‘El Royale’ concept to the creators of ‘Welcome to the Captain’ – and they thereafter used Everett’s script, visuals, story and character concepts in developing ‘Welcome to the Captain,’ with Endeavor’s knowledge and consent.” The case is Brian Everett v. Endeavor Talent Agency, LLC, CV10-4895 AHM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Mack 10 is accused of using the underlying musical compositions in his songs “Big Balla” and “It’s Your Life,” which are on his latest “Soft White” album. “Plaintiff EP was credited on the Infringing Album with authoring the Infringing Songs, however, as stated, Plaintiff EP never signed an agreement authorizing any of the Defendants to sell or exploit the Infringing Songs embodying Plaintiff’s Musical Compositions for commercial gain.” The case is Ervin Pope v. Fontana Distribution, LLC, et al., CV10-4907 MRP (C.D. Cal. 2010).

PRACTICE NOTE: In addition to the federal copyright infringement cause of action, Pope asserts a common law copyright infringement cause of action, which appears to be preempted by the Copyright Act. Mention v. Gessell, 714 F.2d 87, 90 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The Copyright Act of 1976 preempts common law copyright claims, unless the claims arose from undertakings commenced before January 1, 1978."). Because Pope asserts that he composed the music in 2009, the common law copyright infringement cause of action is preempted. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(a).

“Big Balla” video:

Diageo is the world’s largest wine, beer, and spirits company and owns the Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Captain Morgan, Jose Cuervo, and Guinness brands. Plaintiff alleges that Diageo has recently introduced a vodka-based sweet tea beverage under the Savannah Tea trademark. Because Plaintiff allegedly has priority over Diageo in using the Savannah mark, it contends that “Diageo’s use of the Savannah Tea mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers in a variety of ways. For example, consumers are likely to believe, erroneously, (a) that Diageo’s alcohol-based sweet tea is somehow associated, affiliated, or connected with TWG’s alcohol-based sweet tea, or vice-versa or, (b) that Diageo’s alcohol-based sweet tea is sponsored, authorized, or approved by TWG, or vice-versa.” The case is The Wine Group LLC v. Diageo PLC, et al., CV10-2879 DMR (N.D. Cal. 2010).

On a related note, it appears that The Wine Group's Savannah trademark application is the subject of an opposition proceeding filed by Spier Wines before the TTAB. The parties, however, have filed a joint motion to suspend proceedings in furtherance of settlement discussions.

Duff alleges that while True Religion was developing its jeans in September of 2002, its CEO received a copy of Duff’s trademark registration record from the USPTO and was fully aware of Duff’s senior rights. Also, on December 10, 2003, its COO allegedly received another copy of Duff’s trademark registration record. “Despite such knowledge, Defendants proceeded to use in commerce on their jeans a ‘horseshoe’ design that is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ mark.” Defendants are also accused of describing their trademark as a modified “U” in their USPTO trademark applications and failing to disclose to the trademark examining attorney that they were fully aware of Duff’s prior registration.

Duff is asking the Court to cancel True Religion’s “horseshoe” design trademark because it was obtained by fraud. In addition, Duff seeks undisclosed monetary damages for the infringement and a permanent injunction preventing True Religion’s continued use of the horseshoe design. The case is Philip Andrew Duff, et al. v. Guru Denim, Inc. et al., CV10-4611 ODW (C.D. Cal. 2010).

PRACTICE NOTE: I always found it odd that in its counterfeiting lawsuits (here and here) True Religion always mentioned its design patent for the horseshoe design, but would never assert a cause of action for patent infringement. Now that it appears True Religion was allegedly aware of prior art that was not disclosed to the Patent Office, its decision to forego patent infringement claims becomes lucid.

DZ then contracted a third-party to work on the project, which third party was contacted by Taylor’s attorney in June of this year and notified of Taylor’s claim of ownership in the Odd Rods intellectual property. Taylor allegedly sent the third-party a discussion draft of a proposed cooperation agreement between Taylor and EZ, which EZ claims is unenforceable because it was not executed. DZ alleges that Taylor never had exclusive rights to the disputed intellectual property and, if Taylor ever had any, the rights have lapsed due to abandonment and/or termination of all such rights and are now in the public domain. DZ has filed the declaratory judgment action asking the Court to rule that Taylor has no intellectual property rights in the Odd Rods characters. A copy of the complaint is available here. The case is DZ Hart Ltd. Liability Co., v. B.K. Taylor, CV10-4489 PSG (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Here's the promotional video that also provides a history of "Odd Rods" narrated by Scott Baio:

In December of 2009, Plaintiff asserts that it demanded that Defendant immediately stop using Plaintiffs’ trademarks on clothing and to remove the Forever 26 sign from its retail outlet. Defendant allegedly agreed to do so, but Plaintiff claims that it recently obtained evidence of Defendant’s continued use of Plaintiff’s marks. Thus, the instant lawsuit was filed for trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)), and dilution.

This is not Forever 21’s first court rodeo, but it’s one of the few as a Plaintiff. As Stylist.com put it: “Forever 21 has been sued for copyright infringement so many times, we've lost count.” The case is Forever 21, Inc. v. Forever 26, CV10-4331 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Defendants B.B. Dakota, Modcloth, and Metropark are accused of selling jackets using the “Twilight” and “Bella” trademarks in conjunction with the Bella image without authorization. Summit not only seeks Defendants’ profits from the sales of the allegedly infringing products, but also asks the Court to treble the damages because Defendants are accused of intentional infringement. The case is Summit Entertainment, LLC, v. B.B. Dakota, Inc., CV10-4328 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Defendants Plummers, Inc., Scandinavian Desings, Inc. and Dania , Inc. are allegedly affiliated companies that are accused of using the name and trademark “Bogart” without authorization in connection with a line of furniture. Plaintiff claims that Defendants advertising used the “Bogart” trademark along with copy referencing a “great retro design” and in a “deco style” to create a false association because it conjures up memories of the “style in the 1940’s and 50’s when Humphrey Bogart was the world’s most popular, acclaimed and sought-after motion picture actor.” Plaintiff asserts causes of action for misappropriation of right of publicity (Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1), trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and trademark dilution. The case is Bogart, LLC v. Plummers, Inc. et al., CV10-4151 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

The Court denied the motion as to the breach of contract and constructive trust causes of action. The Court, however, dismissed the Lanham Act causes of action because the Court noted that Dr. Dre did not plead that the alterations made to the work were substantial enough to trigger the “Monty Python” rule. Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 538 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1976) (editing of “Monty Python” show for television broadcast constituted authorship or endorsement of a substantially modified version of the work to constitute trademark infringement). The Court continued:

As to plaintiff’s allegation that defendants have used his name and likeness, including the original photograph from the jacket cover of “The Chronic,” the Court finds that these allegations fail to state a claim that defendants have over-represented plaintiff’s contribution to “Re-Lit,” given that defendants accurately identify plaintiff as the author of the original masters and that defendant used a substantially same photograph from the original album jacket cover, and did not use a current picture so to imply that plaintiff recently contributed to the re-issued album.

Similarly, the Court dismissed the right of publicity claim because “plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that defendants’ use of his name and likeness is more than incidental to the protected publication of his albums, and thus defendants’ use is protected by the First Amendment. See Page v. Something Weird Video, 960 F. Supp. 1438, 1442-43 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (finding that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s likeness was protected by the First Amendment because the advertisement was incidental to the protected publication of the film videos).”

The unfair competition claim was also dismissed because the elements are similar to a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act. See Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446, 1457 (9th Cir. 1991) (“An action for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. is substantially congruent to a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act.”). Order available here.

The dismissal was without prejudice subject to an amended complaint being filed within 30 days. The case is Andre Young v. Wideawake Death Row Entertainment, LLC et al., CV10-01019 CAS (C.D.Cal. 2010).

The complaint alleges that Defendant Venita Tubbs has threatened, via her attorney’s cease and desist letter, Munchkin with a patent infringement lawsuit unless it stops selling the Snack Catcher product. Instead of operating under a cloud of uncertainty, Muchkin has taken matters into its own hands and filed suit to adjudicate this dispute. The case is Munchkin, Inc. v. Venita Tubbs, CV10-4074 RSWL (C.D. Cal. 2010).

The Court enjoined Consolidated Pictures from publicly displaying or exhibiting any portion of the movie and attempting to negotiate agreements regarding the distribution, exhibition, or exploitation of the movie. Order available here.

The case is EuropaCorp v. Consolidated Pictures Group, Inc., et al., CV10-2917 DSF (C.D. Cal. 2010).