Dolores Press, Inc. v. Patrick Robinson et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED 15 . ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (pj)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DOLORES PRESS, INC., a California
corporation,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
PATRICK ROBINSON, an individual; et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

) CASE NO. CV 15-02562-R
)
) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on May 8, 2015.

19

(Dkt. No. 15). Having been thoroughly briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter under

20

submission on June 9, 2015. (Dkt. No. 21).

21

This suit arises from disputed copyrights and trademark rights in the audio and visual

22

recordings of Dr. Gene Scott’s teachings (the “Works”). (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 14). It is uncontested that

23

Dr. Scott held some copyrights in these Works and held a trademark on his own name “Dr. Gene

24

Scott” (the “Mark”). (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 19, Ex. A). Dr. Scott offered the works free of charge on his

25

website. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 15). The rights to these copyrights and trademarks were allegedly

26

bequeathed to Dr. Scott’s surviving widow, Pastor Scott, who, after Dr. Scott’s death, removed the

27

Works from the website. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18). Pastor Scott allegedly granted Plaintiff Dolores Press

28

an exclusive license to all rights in the Works. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 19).

1

In January 2014, Defendant Robinson contacted Pastor Scott to seek permission to display

2

the Works on the Internet. (Dkt. No. 1 at Ex. A). Pastor Scott denied Robinson permission to use

3

the Works. (Dkt. No. 1 at Ex. B). Thereafter, Robinson and the other Defendants publically

4

announced that they were creating their own website whereon the Works could be downloaded

5

free of charge. (Dkt. No. 1 at Ex. C). Additionally, Defendants’ website began collecting funds

6

for a “legal battle” against Pastor Scott. (Dkt. No. 1 at Ex. D).

7

In response to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff Dolores Press, filed the instant action on April

8

7, 2015, in the Central District of California, asserting claims for copyright and trademark

9

infringement. (Dkt. No. 1). On April 17, 2015, Doc’s Dream, LLC, a defendant in the instant

10

suit, filed a competing lawsuit in the Central District of California against Dolores Press (the

11

“Competing Lawsuit”). (See Case No. CV-15-2857). The Competing Lawsuit seeks a

12

declaratory judgment that the Works were abandoned and became part of the public domain prior

13

to Dr. Scott’s death. Defendants now seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim

14

or, in the alternative, pursuant to an exception to the Ninth Circuit’s first-to-file rule.

15

Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper only when a complaint

16

exhibits either a “(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) the absence of sufficient facts alleged

17

under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

18

1990). Under the heightened pleading standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544

19

(2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a

20

claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” so that the defendant receives “fair notice of what

21

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A plaintiff must

22

plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

23

liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court will not accept “threadbare

24

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements . . . .” Id.

25

When considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept factual allegations in the

26

complaint (and documents appended to and/or incorporated by reference into the complaint) as

27

true and draw reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See id. at 664.

28

To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) ownership of a
2

1

valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist

2

Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tele. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, (1991). Although a copyright

3

infringement claim requires the copyright be registered with the Copyright Office, this does not

4

need to be pled with particularity in the complaint. Title 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); see also Leatherman

5

v. Tarrant Cnty Narcotics Intelligence & Coord., Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993) (finding only

6

fraud and mistake require particularity in the pleadings).
To state a claim for trademark infringement, a plaintiff must plead: (1) ownership of the

7
8

mark, and (2) that the defendant’s unauthorized use of the mark is likely to cause confusion.

9

Dep’t of Parks & Recreation of California v. Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc., 448 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th

10

Cir. 2006). To demonstrate ownership of a trademark, a plaintiff must show that it is “either (1)

11

the owner of a federal mark registration, (2) the owner of an unregistered mark, or (3) a non-owner

12

with a cognizable interest in the allegedly infringed trademark.” Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson

13

Sales and Marketing, 547 F.3d 1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2008). Because an exclusive licensee of a

14

trademark reasonably has a cognizable interest in protecting the trademark, it follows that an

15

exclusive licensee has the statutory right to bring a cause of action for infringement of the

16

trademark. Id.; see also, Ultrapure Sys., Inc. v. Ham-Let Grp., 921 F. Supp. 659, 665 (N.D. Cal.

17

1996) (finding exclusive licensee of a trademark had standing to sue alleged infringers in its own

18

name).

19

Here, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled ownership of the copyrights. (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶

20

25, 46-48). Plaintiff uses only general words to describe the copyrights allegedly bequeathed to

21

Pastor Scott. Plaintiff has not alleged ownership of any of the actual copyrighted Works. Instead,

22

Plaintiff proffers all-encompassing statements of ownership of every audio and video recording

23

Dr. Scott ever made. Sweeping statements of ownership of the Works are insufficient to

24

demonstrate ownership. Indeed, it is very likely that not all of Dr. Scott’s Works were copyrighted

25

and registered with the Copyright Office. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s blanket statements of

26

ownership are insufficient to support either its copyright or trademark infringement claims.

27

For the same reasons, Plaintiff has failed to allege ownership for trademark purposes in

28

this action. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 808 (9th Cir. 2007).
3

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Dkt.

2

No. 15).

3

Dated: June 23, 2015.

4
5
6
7
8

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4