Gibson Guitar Corp v. Viacom International Inc et al
Filing
70
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 63 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) . (lc) Modified on 11/5/2013 (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GIBSON BRANDS INC., a
Delaware corporation,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., a
Delaware corporation; JOHN
HORNBY SKEWES & CO., LTD., a
United Kingdom corporation,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 12-10870 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
[Dkt. No. 63-1.]
18
19
Presently before the court is Defendant John Hornby Skewes &
20
Co. Ltd.’s ("JHS") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
21
Complaint. (DKT No. 63-1.) JHS moves that the court dismiss the
22
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, in the
23
alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
24
granted. Having considered the parties’ submissions and heard oral
25
argument, the court adopts the following order.
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
I. BACKGROUND
2
Plaintiff Gibson Brands Inc. ("Gibson") owns trademarks to the
3
Flying V Body Shape Design Trademark, the Flying V. Peg-Head Design
4
Trademark, and the word mark “Flying V. (FAC ¶ 2.) Defendant JHS is
5
a United Kingdom corporation that promotes and sells musical
6
instruments. (Id. ¶ 7.) Gibson alleges that Defendant JHS "is or
7
has been directly and indirectly advertising and selling" products
8
using Gibson’s Flying V trademarks. (Id. ¶ 24.) In particular,
9
Gibson’s complaint concerns the Spongebob SquarePants Flying V
10
Ukulele (the "Ukulele"), a ukulele bearing the image of the
11
SpongeBob Squarepants cartoon character formed in a V-shape. (FAC
12
Ex. D, E.)
13
Gibson also named as a defendant Viacom International Inc.
14
(Viacom), a Delaware corporation that owns trademarks for SpongeBob
15
Squarepants. Gibson alleged various forms of secondary liability
16
against Viacom, (Id. ¶ 6), in connection with a license Viacom
17
granted JHS to use its SpongeBob Squarepants trademarks on certain
18
musical instruments, including ukuleles, in certain specified
19
countries, excluding the United States. (FAC Ex. G.) On May 17,
20
2013, this court dismissed Gibson’s claims against Viacom for
21
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (DKT
22
No. 36.) That order did not address Gibson’s claims against JHS.
23
Gibson asserts claims against JHS for trademark infringement,
24
trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, false
25
description of fact and representations, false advertising,
26
trademark dilution, trade dress infringement, and analogous state
27
law claims. (FAC ¶¶ 42-67.)
28
2
1
The infringing activity alleged by Gibson principally involves
2
the "advertising and selling" of unauthorized products bearing
3
Gibson’s Flying V trademarks on the following websites:
4
www.jhs.co.uk, www.worldwidemusic.co.uk, www.ebay.com,
5
www.Strings.ie, www.rakuten.com, and hobgoblin.com. (FAC ¶¶ 23,
6
24.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
II.
LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION
A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
JHS moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip.
13
& Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978).
14
court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless
15
the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock
16
West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873
17
F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). When subject matter
18
jurisdiction is at issue, the plaintiff bears the burden of
19
establishing the jurisdiction it asks the court to invoke. See,
20
e.g., Pinkberry, Inc. v.JEC Intern. Corp., 2011 WL 6101828, at *2
21
(C.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Kokkonen v.Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
22
U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
23
A “federal
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may challenge a complaint’s allegations
24
on their face or with facts. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373
25
F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004); Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v.
26
General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). In a
27
factual challenge, the court is not required to accept the
28
allegations of the complaint as true and may consider additional
3
1
evidence outside of the pleadings. Maya v. Centex Corp.,658 F.3d
2
1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011); Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. Once the
3
moving party has presented evidence showing a lack of subject
4
matter jurisdiction, the burden shifts to “the party opposing the
5
motion [to] furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to
6
satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.”
7
Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1309 (citations omitted). If the plaintiff
8
cannot establish the jurisdiction it seeks to invoke, the court
9
must dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(1). Here, JHS makes both a
10
facial and a factual challenge to Gibson’s assertion of subject
11
matter jurisdiction.
12
JHS’s motion asserts that the court lacks subject matter
13
jurisdiction because all of the allegedly infringing activity
14
occurred outside of the United States. (MTD at 5.) The Lanham Act
15
regulates the use of trademarks in U.S. commerce. 15 U.S.C. §§
16
1114(1), 1127. While the Lanham Act may be invoked to enjoin the
17
sale of infringing goods into the United States, see McBee v.
18
Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107, 122 (1st
19
application to activity that occurs exclusively overseas is
20
limited.
21
determine whether the Lanham Act may be applied to reach the
22
allegedly infringing activity that occurs wholly abroad:
Cir. 2005), the Act’s
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a three-prong test to
23
first, there must be some effect on American foreign commerce;
24
second, the effect must be sufficiently great to present a
25
cognizable injury to plaintiffs under the federal statute; and
26
third, the interests of and links to American foreign commerce
27
must be sufficiently strong in relation to those of other
28
nations to justify an assertion of extraterritorial authority.
4
1
Star-Kist Foods, 769 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th. Cir.) (citing Timberlane
2
Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n, 549
3
F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1976); Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611
4
F.3d 601, 612 (9th Cir. 2010).
5
6
7
B. Application
As a preliminary matter, Gibson asserts that this court has
8
already ruled that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Gibson’s
9
claims. (Opp. at 6.) The court has not made such a ruling. In
10
response to a motion by another party (Viacom) at an earlier stage
11
in the litigation involving a different complaint, the court found
12
it was not appropriate to dismiss the claims against Viacom for
13
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (DKT No. 24 at 3.) That order
14
has no bearing on the instant motion.
15
The court must first determine whether any of the allegedly
16
infringing activity occurred in the United States. If the alleged
17
infringing activities occurred only overseas, the court must then
18
determine whether such activity nevertheless falls within the
19
court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
20
JHS asserts that all of the allegedly infringing activities
21
occurred outside the United States. It argues that the Lanham Act
22
should not be applied extraterritorially in this case. (MTD at 6.)
23
Gibson responds by asserting that infringing activities have
24
occurred in the United States, pointing to the availability of the
25
allegedly infringing products for purchase by U.S. consumers from
26
various online retailers. (Opp. at 8.)
27
28
Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court finds
that Gibson has not presented evidence that JHS has engaged in
5
1
infringing activities within the United States.
The only evidence
2
proffered by plaintiffs of sales of infringing products to U.S.
3
consumers were seven Ukuleles sold to the plaintiffs’ counsel by
4
companies other than JHS.1
5
facts to contest, that “there were no direct sales of the Ukulele
6
from JHS or any of its authorized dealers to any consumers in the
7
United States.” (Declaration of Dennis Drumm in Support of Motion
8
at 2:27-3:2.) According to JHS, only some 339 Ukulele units were
9
sold, with 93 sold in the United Kingdom and 246 sold in other
JHS asserts, and Gibson alleges no
10
countries, excluding the United States.
11
discontinued the Ukulele for commercial reasons. Id.
12
Id.
JHS asserts that it
Additionally, Gibson alleges that JHS “directly marketed” the
13
SpongeBob Flying V Ukelele in the U.S. while attending the 2010
14
National Association of Music Merchants show in Los Angeles,
15
California. (Opp. at 9l; Declaration of Andrea Bates in Support of
16
Opposition at 10.) However, documents submitted by Gibson, which
17
include what are apparently printouts of participants’ booth
18
locations and an unknown person’s webpage on www.myspace.com, do
19
not make clear that JHS marketed the allegedly infringing product.
20
(Bates Decl., Ex. H.)
21
Because there is no evidence that JHS engaged in infringing
22
activities within the United States, the court must consider
23
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over any allegedly
24
infringing activities that occurred abroad. In doing so, it applies
25
26
27
28
1
The online retailers identified by Gibson are
www.Amazon.co.uk, www.Rankuten.co.jp, www.ebay.com,
www.bedrockcommunications.co.uk, www.hobgoblin.co.uk,
www.strings.ie, and www.travemusic.co.uk. (FAC ¶ 24; Declaration of
Andrea Bates in Support of Opposition ¶ 17, Ex. 0.)
6
1
the three-prong test adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Star-Kist
2
Foods. See 769 F.2d at 1395. The activity in question is JHS’s
3
alleged holding out of infringing products for sale on its website
4
in a manner accessible to U.S. consumers.
5
1. Effect on U.S. Commerce
6
The first prong considers whether there has been an effect
7
arising from the defendant’s activities on American commerce.
8
Plaintiff has offered no evidence of such an effect. As noted, JHS
9
presented no evidence that JHS has sold infringing products to
10
consumers inside the United States. The seven Ukuleles Plaintiff
11
has alleged were sold to U.S. consumers were sold not by JHS but by
12
third parties.2
13
demonstrate any impact on Gibson’s foreign commerce.
Nor do the submissions before the court
Although
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Even if JHS were accountable for the activities of the third
party retailers, something not established here, the evidence does
not support the exercise of jurisdiction over the present claims.
It is noteworthy that the third party online retailers in question
are all apparently based overseas and/or direct themselves towards
overseas consumers. See Stomp, Inc. v. NeatO, LLC, 61 F. Supp. 2d
1074, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“[T]he constitutionality of exercising
personal jurisdiction [is] directly proportionate to the nature and
quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the
Internet.”) (citing Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com,
Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1997) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). The www.Strings.ie website includes the
slogan “Ireland’s No. 1 String Supplier. (Bates Decl., Ex. I at
34.) The www.rankuten.com website identifies itself as “Japan’s #1
shopping site” and charges in yen (though prices are listed in U.S.
dollars). (Id. at 35). Each of the advertisements on www.ebay.com
list prices in British pounds. (Id. at 42-46.) Gibson asserts that
the retailer Hobglobin Music-Stoney End Harps will ship from its
Redwing, Minnesota store location, (Opp. at 9), but the underlying
record indicates that the company could only do so after having the
item imported from its British counterpart store. (Bates Decl., Ex.
N.) While a U.S. consumer actively seeking a product may be able to
purchase it abroad and have it shipped to the United States, the
overseas location and orientation of the online retailers tend to
diminish the likely effect on U.S. commerce and therefore the
appropriateness of exercising jurisdiction.
7
1
Gibson suggests that the availability of infringing items on
2
websites hosted overseas could impact its business in a variety of
3
countries around the world, (Declaration of David Berryman in
4
Support of Motion at 9), it has not asserted any facts or proffered
5
any evidence to show such an impact. In short, the facts alleged in
6
the submissions before the court cannot support a finding that
7
JHS’s activities affected U.S. commerce, whether domestic or
8
foreign.
9
2. Cognizable Injury to Plaintiff
10
The second prong considers whether plaintiffs have alleged a
11
cognizable injury in the United States as a result of the
12
defendant’s activities. Because Gibson has not presented evidence
13
that JHS has sold products to U.S. consumers, it cannot allege harm
14
arising from such sales. Gibson might nevertheless allege
15
cognizable harm arising from activities that occurred abroad if it
16
can “present[] evidence that the complained of actions caused [it]
17
monetary injury in the United States.” Love v. Associated
18
Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 613 (9th Cir. 2010). However, there
19
is no cognizable injury where “the connection between loss of
20
business and its proximate cause is too attenuated.”
21
Inc. V. JEC Intern, Corp., 2011 WL 6101828 (C.D. 2011).
22
See Love, 611 F.3d at 613 (musician’s claim that sale of tickets to
23
his U.S. concerts decreased as a result of allegedly infringing
24
music sales in Europe was “too great a stretch” to present a
25
cognizable injury under the Lanham Act).
26
Pinkberry,
Gibson appears to assert that it will suffer monetary harm in
27
the United States because consumers who purchase the product abroad
28
will bring the product into the United States, resulting in
8
1
confusion among U.S. consumers, or that online resellers will sell
2
the product to American consumers. (Berryman Decl. at 8-9.) The
3
court finds, however, that both theories are too attenuated to
4
constitute cognizable theories of injury. Moreover, Gibson has no
5
presented evidence of such injury.
6
3. Interest of the United States
7
The third prong considers whether the interest and links to
8
American foreign commerce are sufficiently strong in relation to
9
those of other nations to justify the assertion of extraterritorial
10
authority. The court must weigh the following seven factors: (1)
11
the degree of conflict with foreign law or policy, (2) the
12
nationality or allegiance of the parties and the locations or
13
principal places of business of corporations, (3) the extent to
14
which enforcement by either state can be expected to achieve
15
compliance, (4) the relative significance of effects on the United
16
States as compared with those elsewhere, (5) the extent to which
17
there is an explicit purpose to harm or affect American commerce,
18
(6) the foreseeability of such effect, and (7) the relative
19
importance to the violations charged of conduct within the United
20
States as compared with conduct abroad. Star–Kist, 769 F.2d at
21
1395–96. Each factor is considered in turn.
22
i) The Degree of Conflict. The first factor examines the
23
degree of conflict with foreign law or policy. The court agrees
24
with JHS that the court’s assertion of extraterritorial authority
25
has the potential to create conflicts with trademark law in the
26
United Kingdom. According to submissions by JHS, Gibson has applied
27
for United Kingdom trademarks in a V-styled guitar body and a
28
symmetrical (six tuning peg) headstock in 2010, though
9
1
subsequently withdrew the applications in January 2011. (MTD at 12;
2
Davis. Decl., Ex. D at 11-26.) Given Gibson’s apparent interest in
3
obtaining trademarks in the United Kingdom, an order by this court
4
concerning use of the same designs in the UK creates a risk of
5
conflict with further UK trademark proceedings on the designs. See,
6
e.g., Star-Kist, 769 F.2d at 396 (“Application of the Lanham Act to
7
wholly foreign Philippine commerce could create conflict with
8
Philippine patent and trademark law and with pending proceedings in
9
that country).
10
11
This factor weighs against exercising
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Lanham Act.
ii) Nationality. The second factor examines the nationality or
12
allegiance of the parties and the locations or principal places of
13
business of any corporations involved in the action. JHS is a
14
United Kingdom corporation. It does not appear to have meaningful
15
relevant operations in the United States. As JHS notes, although
16
Viacom is an American company, the claims against it have been
17
dismissed. This factor weighs against exercising extraterritorial
18
jurisdiction.
19
iii) Achieving Compliance. The third factor examines the
20
extent to which an order by a U.S. court can be expected to achieve
21
compliance with the Lanham Act. The principal concerns articulated
22
in Gibson’s complaint relate not to the conduct of JHS but to that
23
of various online retailers who, Gibson alleges, have sold
24
infringing product acquired from JHS to U.S. consumers. Gibson has
25
not demonstrated that JHS controls the conduct of these retailers,
26
none of which are parties in this lawsuit.3
The court is therefore
27
3
28
The only evidence introduced by Gibson to this effect is a
(continued...)
10
1
concerned that, even if the these retailers are engaging in
2
infringing behavior, the court is not in a position to induce
3
compliance by these companies.
4
Inc., 2013 WL 3786309 *4 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (holding that a judgement
5
in favor of a licensor company is likely to induce compliance by
6
licensee because licensor “is able to control the activities of its
7
licensee”). This factor weighs against exercising extraterritorial
8
jurisdiction.
9
Cf. Airwair Int'l Ltd. v. Vans,
iv) Relative Significance of Effects. The fourth factor
10
examines the relative significance of effects on the United States
11
commerce as opposed to commerce elsewhere. The Ukulele unit was
12
manufactured in China. JHS, a United Kingdom company, asserts, and
13
Gibson has presented no evidence to contest, that of the 399
14
Ukulele units JHS and its authorized dealers sold before
15
discontinuing the product, 93 were sold in the United Kingdom and
16
246 were sold in other countries, with none sold in the United
17
States. (Drumm Decl. at 2:27-3:2.) This factor weighs against
18
exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction.
19
v) Purpose to Harm or Affect U.S. Commerce.
Factor five
20
examines the extent to which there is an explicit purpose to harm
21
or affect American commerce. The court does not have before it
22
evidence of any intent to harm U.S. commerce. As JHS points out,
23
(MTD at 13.), JHS’s license from Viacom to use the SpongeBob
24
trademark on ukuleles specifically excludes sales in the United
25
3
26
27
28
(...continued)
communication from the internet retailer Tone Deaf Music to JHS’s
counsel indicating that it would not ship the item in question
because it had been warned by its supplier (presumably JHS) to
limit sales of the ukulele to the UK and specific EU countries.
(Opp at 5; Bates Decl., Ex. J.)
11
1
States, indicating an intent to avoid U.S. commerce. The court has
2
no evidence before it that JHS has violated the terms of the
3
license. This factor weighs against extraterritorial jurisdiction.
4
vi) Foreseeability. Factor six examines the foreseeability of
5
harm or effect on American commerce. It is certainly arguable that
6
JHS could foresee that retailers would sell products infringing
7
Gibson’s trademark rights within the United States. As Gibson
8
points out, many of these companies distribute globally. (Opp. at
9
9.) Moreover, Gibson notes that it contacted JHS in December 2011
10
with a cease and desist letter informing it of the allegedly
11
infringing product was being sold in the United States, but that
12
JHS took no timely action. (FAC ¶ 27.)
13
of exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction.
14
This factor weighs in favor
vii) Relative Importance: The seventh factor examines the
15
relative importance to the allegations of conduct that occurred
16
within the United States as compared with conduct that occurred
17
abroad. As discussed above, the court has seen no evidence that JHS
18
marketed or sold the product within the United States. As JHS
19
points out, (Opp. at 13), JHS did sign a licensing agreement for
20
the SpongBob Ukulele with Viacom in the United States, but the
21
agreement provided for use only outside the United States. In
22
short, there is no evidence before the court that JHS engaged in
23
any significant activity within or having a connection with the
24
United States.
25
26
27
28
III. Conclusion
The court finds that the weight of the evidence and authority
leans against the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this
12
1
case. For the reasons discussed above, this finding is fatal to
2
Gibson’s assertion that the court has subject matter jurisdiction
3
over its Lamham Act claims against JHS. Additionally, because
4
Gibson’s state law claims are based on supplemental jurisdiction
5
under 15 U.S.C. § 1367, the court must dismiss those claims as
6
well.
7
subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss this case, it need not
8
reach JHS’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or its
9
motion for a transfer of venue.
Finally, because the court finds that it lacks federal
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
Dated: November 5, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?