Generosity.org v. Generosity Beverages, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION 13 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court preliminarily enjoins Generosity Beverages, Inc. from making any claim of affiliation or partnership with Generosity.or g. All other relief requested in GWs Motion is DENIED. Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to conduct a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Stevenson on or before February 26, 2018. All other dates and deadlines are VACATED and the Court STAYS this case pending the outcome of the settlement conference. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:17-CV-6054-ODW-KS

GENEROSITY.ORG
Plaintiff,
vs.
GENEROSITY BEVERAGES, INC; and
DOES 1 to 20 inclusive,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION [13]

16

Defendants.

17
18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION

20

Plaintiff Generosity.org (“GW”) brings this breach of contract and trademark

21

action against Defendant Generosity Beverages, Inc. (“GBI”) and now moves for an

22

order enjoining GBI from using GW’s alleged trademarks. (ECF No. 13.) For the

23

following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART,

24

Plaintiff’s Motion.

25

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

26

GW is a registered 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization that was created to raise

27

donations to fund the construction of water wells in impoverished countries.

28

(Declaration of Philip Wagner (“Wagner Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–5, ECF No. 14.)

Philip

1

Wagner, a pastor at the Los Angeles Oasis Christian Church, founded GW in 2007,

2

and registered the organization as a 501(c)(3) in November 2008. (Id.) On June 28,

3

2007, GW applied to register the name “GENEROSITY WATER” for use in

4

connection with “bottled drinking water,” and the USPTO issued a trademark

5

registration on November 25, 2008, under U.S. Reg. No. 3,538,005 (the “’005

6

Mark”). (Id. ¶ 6.)
In October 2009, Micah Cravalho joined GW’s Board of Directors.

7
8

(Declaration of Micah Cravalho (“Cravalho Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 25-1.)

In

9

December 2012, Cravalho and Jordan Wagner, Philip Wagner’s son, formed GBI, a

10

for-profit corporation. (Id. ¶ 4.) At this point, Jordan Wagner was also acting as

11

GW’s President. (Id. ¶ 4.) Shortly after its formation, Jordan Wagner became GBI’s

12

Chief Executive Officer, Cravalho became the Chief Operations Officer, and Justin

13

Beckett1 joined GBI’s Board of Directors. (Id. ¶ 6.)

14

On February 19, 2013, GW and GBI entered into a trademark license

15

agreement whereby GW granted GBI an exclusive right to use and commercially

16

exploit the ’005 Mark, i.e. the name “Generosity Water,” in connection with the

17

production and sale of bottled drinking water (the “License Agreement”). (Compl.,

18

Ex. A, ECF No. 1.) As compensation for the license, GBI agreed to pay GW, on a

19

quarterly basis, a royalty equal to twenty percent of GBI’s net income from the sale

20

of the bottled water. (Id. ¶¶ 4.2, 4.3.) The License Agreement also required GBI to

21

submit written royalty statements to GW. (Id. ¶ 4.4.)

22

GBI has only made two payments to GW. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 10.) In 2013, GBI

23

covered $5,000 in expenses for an outside vendor to construct GW’s website. (Id.)

24

In 2014, GBI paid $10,000 as an advance payment against royalties to help fund two

25

water-well rehabilitation projects in Haiti. (Id.)

26

The License Agreement also provides that GBI “shall own all intellectual

27

property rights . . . arising from or based upon GBI’s creation, development,

28

1

Justin Beckett was also a member of GW’s Board of Directors. (Id. ¶ 13.)

2

1

manufacturing, marketing, promotion, distribution and sale of [the bottled water sold

2

under the License Agreement], together with all associated goodwill.” (Compl., Ex.

3

A ¶ 8.2.) The parties also agreed that “GW shall not, at any time during or after the

4

Term of this Agreement, dispute or contest, directly or indirectly, GBI’s exclusive

5

right and title to any portion of the GBI IP.” (Id. (emphasis added).)

6

On March 5, 2013, GW applied to register a logo, the word “Generosity” in

7

blue large capital letters with a water droplet design, to be used for bottled drinking

8

water, and the USPTO issued the trademark registration on January 19, 2016, under

9

U.S. Reg. No. 8,889,854 (the “’854 Mark”). (Wagner Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.)

10

Also in March 2013, GBI engaged a designer to begin working on the design

11

of a logo for GBI’s bottled water, which included a water droplet design within the

12

“o” in “Generosity.” (Cravalho Decl. ¶ 7.) In early 2015, GBI approached the same

13

designer to assist in updating the logo and prepare bottle designs and packaging

14

layouts. (Id. ¶ 9.) GBI paid for all of the design work associated with the logo. (Id.

15

¶ 10.) The redesigned logo GBI selected and now uses is:

16
17
18

On May 29, 2015, GW filed a subsequent application to register a logo for

19

“Generosity,” with a description almost identical to the ’854 Mark. (Wagner Decl.

20

¶ 8, Ex. C.) The USPTO issued the trademark registration on January 5, 2016, under

21

U.S. Reg. No. 4,881,004 (the “’004 Mark”). (Wagner Decl. ¶ 8.) GBI alleges that

22

both the ’854 and ’004 Marks were based on designs that it paid for, solicited, and

23

selected. (Opp’n 12–13.)

24

On June 11, 2015, GW and GBI entered into an amendment to the License

25

Agreement (the “Amendment”).

(Compl., Ex. B, ECF No. 1.)

26

Amendment, GBI agreed to pay GW a monthly fee of $2,000.00 for six months. (Id.

27

at 1.) GBI also agreed to pay an additional royalty of $1.00 for every twelve one-liter

28

3

Under the

1

bottles of water produced by or on behalf of GW. 2 (Id.) GBI claims that Jordan

2

Wagner and Justin Beckett, who at the time held positions for both GBI and GW,

3

caused GBI and GW to enter into the Amendment without input from anyone else at

4

GBI. (Cravalho Decl. ¶¶ 13–14.)

5

GBI claims that in or around February 2016, GBI’s Board of Directors

6

discovered a “series of improprieties” by Jordan Wagner and requested his

7

resignation. (Id. ¶ 16.) Shortly thereafter, Jordan Wagner stepped down from his

8

executive role in GBI and Justin Beckett resigned his position on GBI’s Board of

9

Directors. (Id. ¶ 17.)

10

On October 13, 2016, GW applied to register the below logo for

11

Generosity.org, which incorporated the water droplet design. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 9.)

12

The USPTO issued the trademark registration on May 16, 2017, under U.S. Reg. No.

13

5,204,887 (the “’887 Mark”). (Id. Ex. D.)

14
15
16
17
18

In December 2016, GBI applied to register the “droplet logo” below for use on

19

bottled drinking water. (Cravalho Decl. ¶ 12.) The USPTO issued the trademark

20

registration under U.S. Reg. No. 5,236,930 on July 4, 2017 (the “’930 Mark”). (Id.

21

Ex. 4.)

22
23
24
25

In March 2017, Jordan Wagner and Justin Beckett negotiated the sale of all of

26

their GBI stock. (Cravalho Decl. ¶ 19.) On May 12, 2017, GW sent GBI a notice of

27

default, claiming that GBI was in default of the License Agreement for failure to pay

28

2

The rates differed for larger or smaller bottles, and were to be determined on a pro rata basis.

4

1

royalties. (Compl. ¶ 48, Ex. C.) GW sent a second default notice to GBI on May 22,

2

2017. (Id. ¶ 50, Ex. D.) On June 1, 2017, GW terminated the License Agreement

3

and has since made multiple demands for GBI to immediately stop using the ’005,

4

’854, and ’004 Marks. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 11.)

5
6

GBI operates the website “generositywater.org.” (Wagner Decl. ¶ 13.) The
website advertises bottles of water bearing the ’004 Mark. (Id., Ex. F.)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

GW initiated this lawsuit against GBI on August 15, 2017, alleging claims for

17

breach of contract, trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and violations of

18

California’s unfair competition laws. (Compl.) GW alleges that GBI continues to

19

use the ’005, ’854, and ’004 Marks. (Compl. ¶ 83.) On September 1, 2017, GW

20

moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop GBI’s use of all three Marks.

21

(Mot.)

22

On September 25, 2017, GBI answered GW’s Complaint and asserted various

23

counterclaims against GW, namely trademark infringement of the ’930 Mark, breach

24

of contract, and a request for a declaration invalidating the ’854, ’004, and ’887

25

Marks. (Countercl., ECF No. 21.) On October 2, 2017, GBI opposed GW’s Motion

26

for Preliminary Injunction. (Opp’n, ECF No. 25.) The Court heard oral argument

27

from both parties on GW’s Motion on December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 35.)

28

5

III.

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.

3

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a

4

preliminary injunction must establish that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)

5

it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the

6

balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id.

7

at 20; Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). In each

8

case, a court “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the

9

effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco

10

Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). Further, courts of equity

11

should particularly consider the public consequences in employing the extraordinary

12

remedy of injunction. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982).
IV.

13

DISCUSSION

14

GBI opposes GW’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the grounds that GW

15

(1) cannot establish it is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claims; (2)

16

will not be irreparably harmed without the injunction; and (3) has unclean hands.

17

(Opp’n, ECF No. 25.) The Court addresses each argument in turn.

18
19

A.
Likelihood of GW Succeeding on its Trademark Infringement
Claims

20

A claim for trademark infringement requires a plaintiff to prove that (1) it owns

21

a valid, protectable mark, and (2) the defendant used a mark confusingly similar to the

22

plaintiff’s mark. Brookfield Comm., Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036,

23

1046–47 (9th Cir. 1999).

24

GBI claims that GW is not likely to succeed on its trademark infringement

25

claims because GBI owns the intellectual property that resulted in the ’854 and ’004

26

Marks.

27

intellectual property rights, other than the ’005 Mark, arising from GBI’s marketing,

28

promotion, distribution and sale of the bottled drinking water. Further, GBI asserts

(Opp’n 10.)

GBI argues that the License Agreement granted GBI all

6

1

that its ownership of this intellectual property continues even after the termination of

2

the License Agreement pursuant to ¶ 11.5, which provides:
Following the expiration or termination of this Agreement .
. . GBI shall have the right to use and exploit GBI IP on
bottled water or other commercial products, so long as and
subject to GBI taking all commercially reasonable and
available actions to advise the public that any such products
are not authorized, approved, sponsored or endorsed by GW.

3
4
5
6
7

(emphasis added). Based on this language, GBI claims that its continued marketing

8

and sales of bottled water bearing the name “Generosity” and the ’854 and ’004

9

Marks, cannot be deemed as infringing any rights held by GW.

10

GW responds that the License Agreement provides that GW expressly retained

11

all rights to the ’005 Mark in any form, which would include all the later designs and

12

trademarks that use the “Generosity” name. GW further argues that ¶ 11.4 of the

13

License Agreement requires that after termination, GBI must “refrain from all future

14

use” of the ’005 Mark and “any marks, name or material that is a simulation of” the

15

’005 Mark or “is confusingly similar thereto.” (Reply 4, ECF No. 27.) GW also

16

points to the registrations of the ’854, ’004, and ’887 Marks, which were all registered

17

in GW’s name.

18

evidence of the validity of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the

19

mark. (Reply 3 (citing Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 970 (9th

20

Cir. 2007).)

GW argues that registration of a mark constitutes prima facie

21

The likelihood of GW succeeding on its trademark infringement claim hinges

22

on whether (1) GBI owns the IP that GW registered as the ’854 and ’004 Marks and

23

(2) the ’854 and ’004 Marks are confusingly similar to the ’005 Mark.

24

First, the language of the License Agreement grants GBI intellectual-property

25

rights in all designs “arising from or based upon GBI’s creation, development,

26

manufacturing, marketing, promotion, distribution and sale of” bottled water pursuant

27

to the Agreement. GW does not contest GBI’s assertion that GBI oversaw and paid

28

for the creation of the design that led to the ’854 and ’004 Marks. It is also undisputed

7

1

that GBI caused the creation of those designs in order to promote and sell bottled

2

water under the License Agreement. Therefore, there is a material dispute as to

3

whether GBI owns those designs.

4

Second, GW has not met its burden to prove that the ’854 and ’004 Marks are

5

“confusingly similar” to the ’005 Mark. While the word “generosity” in the ’854 and

6

’004 Marks is included in the name “Generosity Water”—i.e. the ’005 Mark—both

7

“generosity” and “water” could be considered generic words, which courts regularly

8

disregard when analyzing whether marks are “confusingly similar.” See e.g., Keebler

9

Co. v. Murray Bakery Prods., 866 F.2d 1386, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (finding that as a

10

preliminary to comparing the marks in their entireties it is not improper to give less

11

weight to the generic “pecan” part of the marks in finding no likely confusion in:

12

PECAN SANDIES pecan cookies vs. PECAN SHORTEES pecan cookies); In re

13

Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Neither the design

14

element nor the generic term ‘café’ offers sufficient distinctiveness to create a

15

different commercial impression”).

16

Finally, GW also presents evidence that GBI offered to buy the ’854 and ’004

17

Marks from GW to support its argument that GW rightfully owns those Marks.

18

(Reply 5–6.)

19

unclear.

20

management of both companies.

21

explains to Philip Wagner that he is proposing the buyout because potential investors

22

are uncomfortable lending money to GBI when all it has is a licensing arrangement

23

with a non-profit. (ECF No. 29, Ex. C.) Therefore, Cravalho’s offer for GBI to buy

24

the trademarks could be construed as an attempt for additional “security” to appease

25

potential investors, rather than an unequivocal admission that GBI does not own those

26

Marks.3

However, the circumstances surrounding the proposed buyout are

Both offers were made when there was substantial overlap in the
Additionally, in one email from Cravalho, he

27
28

3

GBI raised, for the first time at the hearing on GW’s Motion, the argument that these offers are
inadmissible as settlement communications under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Because GBI has

8

1

For these reasons, there are sufficient remaining legal and factual uncertainties

2

demonstrating that GW has not established that it is likely to succeed on its trademark

3

infringement claims for the ’854 and ’004 Marks, at this juncture.

4

What cannot be questioned, however, is that the License Agreement specifically

5

reserved GW’s ownership rights to the name “Generosity Water,” which is the

6

substance of the ’005 Mark. (Compl., Ex. A ¶ 1.3.) GBI uses that name in its website

7

domain, “generositywater.com.” However, because GW has not met its burden to

8

establish irreparable harm (see Section IV.B below), even a more limited preliminary

9

injunction, such as ordering GBI to stop using that domain name, is not appropriate at

10

this time.

11

B.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Irreparable Harm to GW

GW claims that GBI’s use of the name “Generosity” to sell bottled water
irreparably harms GW’s reputation and goodwill because the public will associate
GBI’s products with GW. GW claims that it “no longer wishes to be associated with
any entity that fails to abide by its contractual obligations and seeks to use a charitable
organization as a springboard to generate unjust profits.” (Mot. 14.) GW also argues
that this shows a “loss of control over [GW’s] business reputation and damage to
goodwill” constituting irreparable harm. (Reply 10 (citing Herb Reed Enter., LLC v.
Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1250 (9th Cir. 2013); 2Die4Fourt v.
Hillair Capital Mgmt., LLC, 692 F. App’x 366, 369 (9th Cir. 2017).)
GW’s irreparable-harm claim centers on GBI’s alleged continued use of
statements on its website indicating that it is still associated with GW. GW claims that
as of October 6, 2017, in the “FAQ” section on GBI’s website titled “How does
Generosity Water give back?” the following answer is provided:

25
26
27
28

not provided enough information to make an evidentiary ruling on that issue, the Court declines to
strike the evidence at this time.

9

We love this part! [GBI] gives two people clean water for one
month for every bottle purchased[,] we do this by our non-profit
partner, Generosity.org. Each bottle of Generosity Water is
marked with a QR code that can instantly show the exact
community your purchase supported! To learn more about our
non-profit partner, check out generosity.org.

1
2
3
4
5
6

(Reply 11.) The Court finds that the above statement, and the potential for public

7

confusion as to whether GBI and GW are still affiliated, could rise to the level of loss

8

of goodwill necessary to establish irreparable harm. However, the Court also finds

9

that the alleged harm could be alleviated with a more limited injunction precluding

10

GBI from making any public claim of association or partnership with GW. As this

11

limited injunction addresses the only claim of harm, the Court finds that GW has not

12

shown irreparable harm so as to justify a preliminary injunction requiring GBI to

13

cease all use of the ’005, ’004, and ’854 Marks.

14

C.

15

GBI claims that GW is precluded from equitable relief because it has unclean

16

hands. (Opp’n 23 (citing Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240,

17

241 (1933).) GBI claims that the only reason it has been sued for breach of contract

18

and trademark infringement is because Jordan Wagner and Justin Beckett, while

19

functioning in their capacities for GW and GBI, negotiated an untenable Amendment

20

to the License Agreement. (Opp’n 24.) GBI asserts that Jordan Wagner and Justin

21

Beckett knew that GBI would not be able to pay the fees and royalties required under

22

the Amendment and failed to cause GBI to make any such payments when they held

23

leadership positions at both GBI and GW. (Id.)

Unclean Hands & Balance of Equities

24

GW responds that in a trademark case, in order to make out an unclean hands

25

defense, the defendant “must demonstrate that the plaintiff’s conduct is inequitable

26

and that the conduct relates to the subject matter of its claims.” (Reply 17 (citing

27

Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am. Inc., 287 F.3d 866, 870 (9th Cir. 2002).)

28

10

1

Further, GW claims that under the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Japan Telecom, a

2

defendant “must show that plaintiff used the trademark to deceive customers.” (Id.)

3

It is doubtful that the Ninth Circuit intended its holding in Japan Telecom to

4

provide the only avenue to establishing an unclean-hands defense in a trademark

5

infringement case. Rather, that court addressed the defendant’s argument that the

6

plaintiff’s use of the mark in question was deceptive. However, the burden to show

7

that a party is precluded from equitable relief due to unclean hands is significant. See

8

Citizens Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Evans City, 383 F.3d 110, 129 (3d

9

Cir. 2004) (“Because a central concern in an unfair competition case is protection of

10

the public from confusion, courts require clear, convincing evidence of ‘egregious’

11

misconduct

12

TrafficSchool.com v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 834 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing

13

between merely “bad intentions” and unclean hands).

before invoking

the

doctrine

of

unclean

hands.”); see also

14

Even if GBI cannot make out an unclean-hands defense, the balance of equities

15

weighs against entering GW’s requested preliminary injunction at this time. See

16

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (“[C]ourts must balance

17

the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the

18

granting or withholding of the requested relief”). First, GW has presented a weak

19

showing of harm as a result of GBI’s use of the alleged infringing marks. Second, it

20

appears that GBI’s only source of income is selling bottles of water bearing the name

21

“Generosity.” Therefore, the Court is hesitant to effectively cut off GBI’s ability to

22

conduct any business when there are allegations of self-dealing between the leadership

23

of GW and GBI supported by evidence of vastly overlapping management and

24

leadership in the companies. And lastly, GBI claims that it would lose its next round

25

of investment and any sales or distribution prospects over the next year should the

26

Court grant GW’s requested preliminary injunction. (Cravalho Decl. ¶ 24.) Given

27

these considerations, the Court declines to issue the preliminary injunction requested

28

by GW.

11

1

D.

Settlement Conference and Stay of the Case

2

Upon consideration of the parties’ moving and opposition papers and the

3

arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds that the parties would benefit from

4

participating in a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge assigned to this

5

case. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties to conduct a settlement conference

6

with Magistrate Judge Stevenson no later than February 26, 2018.

7

The Court also finds that a short stay of this case is appropriate to allow the

8

parties to conduct the settlement conference without also incurring substantial legal

9

fees and expenses. See Landis v. North Am. Co, 29 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Therefore,

10

the Court STAYS this case, pending the outcome of the settlement conference and

11

VACATES all other dates and deadlines. Should the parties be unable to reach an

12

agreement at the settlement conference, they shall meet and confer and within ten (10)

13

days of the settlement conference submit a stipulation to the Court lifting the stay and

14

outlining a proposal for the remaining dates and deadlines.
IV.

15
16

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

17

PART GW’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

18

preliminarily enjoins GBI from making any claim of affiliation or partnership with

19

GW. All other relief requested in GW’s Motion is DENIED. Further, the Court

20

ORDERS the parties to conduct a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge

21

Stevenson on or before February 26, 2018.

22

VACATED and the Court STAYS this case pending the outcome of the settlement

23

conference.

24

December 6, 2017

The Court

All other dates and deadlines are

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

(ECF No. 13.)

26

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

12