Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Filing 312

Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Doc. 312

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 312

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 5/8/2007**

GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a decoratetoday.com, Inc., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a decoratetoday.com, Inc., Counter Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., AMERICA ONLINE, INC., NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, COMPUSERVE INTERACTIVE SERVICES, INC., ASK JEEVES, INC. and EARTHLINK, INC., Counter Defendant/ Third Party Defendants.

Case Number C 03-5340-JF (RS) ORDER1 RE ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [re: docket no. 308]

This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

C a s e No. C 03-5340 JF (RS) O R D E R RE ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( JF L C 1 )

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 312

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On April 18, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Google Inc.'s ("Google") motion for summary judgment as to the counterclaims brought by American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. ("ABWF"). In so doing, the Court concluded that "ABWF has not produced sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that ABWF's marks are famous or distinctive as required under either the federal or the state dilution statute." Summary Judgment Order 19. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor Google as to ABWF's counterclaims for dilution under the Lanham Act and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14330. The Court omitted ABWF's ninth counterclaim for contributory dilution from its grant of summary judgment. Because the Court's conclusion regarding the absence of a triable issue of fact as to fame applies equally in the context of contributory dilution, Google also is entitled to summary judgment as to this counterclaim.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2007.

JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

The parties raised this issue in their Joint Case Management Conference Statement, filed on April 27, 2007. There it states that "ABWF is not opposed to Google's request" for clarification that the Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Google includes the ninth counterclaim. 2
C a s e No. C 03-5340 JF (RS) O R D E R RE ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( JF L C 1 )

2

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 312

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5

This Order has been served upon the following persons: Ethan B. Andelman Dawn Beery Susan Jean Greenspon Ravind Singh Grewal [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

6 Klaus Hemingway Hamm 7 Ajay Krishnan 8 Mark Alan Lemley 9 Michael H. Page 10 Robert Nathan Phillips 11 Caroline Claire Plater 12 David A. Rammelt 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
C a s e No. C 03-5340 JF (RS) O R D E R RE ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( JF L C 1 )

Notice will be delivered by other means to: Paul W. Garrity Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178