Seed Services, Inc. v. Winsor Grain, Inc., et al

Filing 57

ORDER Denying Motion for Temporary restraining order and vacating hearing of 12/16/11 at 3:00 p.m. signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/16/11. (Nazaroff, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SEED SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WINSOR GRAIN, INC., a Minnesota ) corporation, WILLIAM L. COOK, an ) individual, and DOES 1 through 35, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) CASE NO. 1:10-CV-2185 AWI GSA ORDER RE: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 16 17 18 Plaintiff Seed Services, Inc. (“Seed Services”) produces and supplies seeds for 19 agricultural production. Defendant Winsor Grain, Inc. (“Winsor Grain”) sells Seed Services’s 20 products in the Middle East. Defendant William Cook (“Mr. Cook”) is the owner and president 21 of Winsor Grain (collectively “Defendants”). On August 30, 2010, Seed Services and 22 Defendants entered into a contract whereby Seed Services agreed to buy certain assets of Winsor 23 Grain (“Contract”). In key part, Winsor Grain agreed to give Seed Services its trademarks, to 24 turn over its customer list, to have Mr. Cook act as Seed Services’s sales agent for nine months, 25 and to cease all new sales to the Middle East. In return, Seed Services agreed to pay Winsor 26 Grain a total of $1,000,000. $250,000 was to be paid immediately in the form of credit for 27 accounts payable Winsor Grain owed Seed Services with the remainder to be paid to Mr. Cook as 28 a commission on sales to North Africa and the Middle East. On September 8, 2010, Seed 1 1 Services sent a shipment of seed to third party Erzam Agricultural Trading Co. (“Erzam”) in 2 Saudi Arabia which arrived on October 12, 2010. On that date, Mr. Cook instructed Erzam to 3 deposit the $900,000 payment for the shipment to an account owned by Winsor Grain. Seed 4 Services alleges that this action is in violation of the Contract. Seed Services filed suit on 5 November 22, 2010, alleging six causes of action: conversion, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud 6 and deceit, rescission of contract, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment; the case is brought 7 under diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1, Complaint. 8 9 Recently, Seed Services filed a motion for temporary restraining order, alleging that Mr. Cook is attempting to infringe on Seed Services’s trademark of the seed brand “California Gold.” 10 Doc. 39. Seed Services then filed a motion to amend the complaint to add claims of trademark 11 infringement under the Lanham Act. Doc. 47, Part 2, Proposed First Supplemental Complaint. 12 “California Gold” is one of the trademarks transferred from Winsor Grain to Seed Services as 13 part of the Contract. It must be noted that, “California Gold” is not mentioned by name in the 14 operative complaint. The operative complaint does not deal with trademark infringement as the 15 relevant allegations all deal with actions that took place this year, after the original complaint was 16 filed. Further, the motion for temporary restraining order is wholly based on trademark 17 infringement; Seed Services requests an injunction preventing Defendants “from infringing on 18 Seed Services’ trademarks and from unfairly competing with Seed Services by using its 19 trademarks.” Doc. 39, Motion, at 1:28-2:1. Seed Services has provided no briefing supporting an 20 injunction based on any of the legal bases advanced in the operative complaint. The motion for 21 leave to amend is scheduled to be heard before Magistrate Judge Gary Austin on January 6, 2012. 22 Defendants have not yet filed any response to the motion for leave to amend; the deadline for 23 doing so has not yet passed. Unfortunately, this court can not rule on the motion for leave to 24 amend at this point in time. “A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction 25 in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in 26 the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997), citing De Beers Consol. 27 Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Seed Services’s motion for temporary restraining order 28 must be denied without prejudice to refiling. 2 1 In the event that Seed Services renews the motion, the parties are advised that 2 determining the application of a U.S. trademark to conduct outside the U.S. is an issue of subject 3 matter jurisdiction. See McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107, 117 (1st Cir. 2005). The nationality 4 of Defendants may be an important consideration as “Congress has the power to prevent unfair 5 trade practices in foreign commerce by citizens of the United States, although some of the acts 6 are done outside the territorial limits of the United States.” Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 7 280, 286 (1952), quoting Branch v. Federal Trade Com., 141 F.2d 31, 35 (7th Cir. 1944); see 8 also American Rice v. Arkansas Rice Growers Coop. Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 n.7 (5th Cir. 9 1983) (“[T]he United States has the power to prevent the enjoyment of a trademark right 10 specifically granted to one of its citizens by a foreign state”); Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las 11 Palmas Food Co., 146 F. Supp. 594, 602 (S.D. Cal. 1956), adopted and summarily aff’d, 245 12 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1957) (“defendants’ Mexican registration of plaintiff’s mark can have no 13 greater effect than to confer upon defendants a license or permission to use the mark in Mexico. 14 It is not even contended that any public policy of Mexico requires defendants ever to exercise 15 that license. So there could be no affront to Mexican sovereignty or Mexican law if, as between 16 the parties, this court should declare that defendants may not so use their license under Mexican 17 law as to injure plaintiff’s foreign commerce conducted from the United States”). The parties are 18 advised to address the Ninth Circuit’s standard for determining the extraterritorial reach of the 19 Lanham Act in Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., 953 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 It is ORDERED that, Seed Services’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED 21 without prejudice to refiling. The hearing date of December 16, 2011 is VACATED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: 0m8i78 December 16, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 3

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?