Bobbleheads.com, LLC v. Wright Brothers, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss. It is ordered that the Court dismisses without prejudice plaintiff's FAC. Consistent with this opinion, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, if any, on or before fourteen (14) days of the date on which this order is electronically docketed. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/8/2017. (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

BOBBLEHEADS.COM, LLC, a Georgia
limited liability company,

15
16
17

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

v.
WRIGHT BROTHERS, INC., a
California corporation; COREY
WRIGHT, an individual; and CASEY
WRIGHT, an individual,

(ECF No. 28)

Defendants.

18
19
20

Presently before the Court is Defendants Wright Brothers, Inc.’s, Corey Wright’s,

21

and Casey Wright’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, (“MTD,” ECF No. 28).

22

Also before the Court are Plaintiff Bobbleheads.com, LLC’s Response in Opposition to,

23

(“Opp’n,” ECF No. 34), and Defendants’ Reply in Support of, (“Reply,” ECF No. 36),

24

Defendants’ MTD. The Court vacated the hearing on the motion and took the matter under

25

submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 37.) After considering the

26

parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

27

Defendants’ MTD.

28

///
1
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff Bobbleheads.com designs, markets, distributes, and sells bobbleheads.

3

(FAC ¶ 14, ECF No. 18.) One such bobblehead is known as the Hillary Clinton Striped

4

Prison Pantsuit Bobblehead (the “Bobbleheads.com Work”), which Plaintiff published on

5

August 13, 2015. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of the complete

6

Bobbleheads.com Work (the “Full Clinton” registration) on September 2, 2016 with the

7

United States Copyright Office. (Id.; see also id. Exs. 1, 2.) Additionally, Plaintiff filed an

8

application covering just the head of the Bobbleheads.com Work (the “Clinton Head”

9

registration) on or about May 13, 2016. (Id.; see also id. Ex. 3.) The following is a

10

photocopied image of the complete Bobbleheads.com Work:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(Id.)

24

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have reproduced, prepared derivative works, and

25

distribute or have distributed unauthorized copies of the Bobbleheads.com Work to the

26

public by selling two of their own bobbleheads (“Defendant Work 1” and “Defendant Work

27

2”). (Id. ¶ 16.) A side-by-side comparison of the Bobbleheads.com Work and Defendant

28

Work 1 and Defendant Work 2 is reproduced below:
2
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

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

(Id.)

24

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff notified Defendants of the alleged infringement and

25

asked Defendants to cease and desist from manufacturing Defendant Work 1. (Id. ¶ 17.)

26

Plaintiff sent a follow-up letter on September 21, 2016, and, after some communication

27

between the parties, Defendants took steps to make it appear that they had temporarily

28

discontinued the sale of Defendant Work 1. (Id. ¶ 18.) During the parties’ communications,
3
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

Plaintiff sent notices to numerous online service providers, indicating that Defendants’

2

infringing work was being advertised and sold on the service providers’ respective sites

3

and demanding that these advertisements be taken down pursuant to the Digital Millennium

4

Copyright Act (“DMCA”). (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants shifted their

5

advertising and sales to other platforms and outlets to avoid the impact of these DMCA

6

notices. (Id.)

7

In addition to copyright infringement, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged

8

in false advertising. (Id. ¶ 20.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely

9

advertised in various media that their products were sponsored or otherwise affiliated with

10

the Trump/Pence Presidential campaign (using the Trump/Pence campaign logo on

11

websites and other advertisements; indicating that a copyright for their website was owned

12

by or affiliated with Trump; and stating in their advertisements that Defendants’

13

bobbleheads were “The official bobble head doll of the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential

14

campaign”). (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that neither Trump nor the Trump/Pence campaign

15

authorized the sale of or had any association with Defendants’ works. (Id.)

16

Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely advertised the sale of

17

Defendant Work 2 but, when consumers actually ordered Defendant Work 2, Defendants

18

actually shipped Defendant Work 1. (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges this based on its own order

19

of Defendant Work 2, where it instead received Defendant Work 1. (Id. ¶ 22; see also id.

20

Ex. 4 (Order Form), Ex. 5 (product received).) In addition to false advertising, Plaintiff

21

alleges that the practice of advertising Defendant Work 2 instead of Defendant Work 1, but

22

still sending Defendant Work 1, was an attempt to avoid further infringement of the

23

Bobbleheads.com Work, since Defendant Work 1 looks more similar to the

24

Bobbleheads.com Work.1 (Id. ¶ 21.)

25

///

26
27
28

1

That said, Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Work 2 infringes its copyright in the Bobbleheads.com
Work. (FAC ¶ 21, ECF No. 18.)
4
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

Plaintiff brings three claims against Defendants based on these allegations: (1)

2

copyright infringement against Defendant Wright Brothers, Inc.; (2) copyright

3

infringement against Defendant Casey Wright and Defendant Corey Wright; and (3) false

4

advertising against all Defendants. (See generally id.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,

5

impoundment of all counterfeit and infringing copies of the Bobbleheads.com Work, and

6

general, special, actual, and statutory damages. (Id.)

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to raise by motion the

9

defense that the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,”

10

generally referred to as a motion to dismiss. The Court evaluates whether a complaint states

11

a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in light of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12

8(a), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

13

entitled to relief.” Although Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it

14

[does]

15

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

16

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In other words, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide

17

the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and

18

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S.

19

at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). A complaint will not suffice

20

“if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

21

at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

demand

more

than

an

unadorned,

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

22

In order to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

23

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting

24

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A claim is facially plausible

25

when the facts pled “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

26

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at

27

556). That is not to say that the claim must be probable, but there must be “more than a

28

sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “‘merely consistent with’
5
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

a defendant’s liability” fall short of a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. (quoting Twombly,

2

550 U.S. at 557). Further, the Court need not accept as true “legal conclusions” contained

3

in the complaint. Id. This review requires context-specific analysis involving the Court’s

4

“judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 678 (citation omitted). “[W]here the well-

5

pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,

6

the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”

7

Id.

8

Where a complaint does not survive 12(b)(6) analysis, the Court will grant leave to

9

amend unless it determines that no modified contention “consistent with the challenged

10

pleading . . . [will] cure the deficiency.” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655,

11

658 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Schriber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d

12

1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)).

13

ANALYSIS

14

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC on two principal grounds with several

15

sub-arguments in each: (I) Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim fails; and (II) Plaintiff has no basis

16

to seek fees or statutory damages under the Copyright Act. (See generally MTD, ECF No.

17

28-1.) The Court addresses each argument in turn.

18

I.

Plaintiff’s Lanham Act Claim

19

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim on various grounds: (A)

20

Plaintiff’s allegations supporting its false advertising claim under the Lanham Act must

21

meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard; (B) Plaintiff fails to allege false advertising

22

under Rule 9(b); and (C) even if Plaintiff’s allegations survive Rule 9(b), its Lanham Act

23

claim still fails for other reasons. (See id. at 12–23.2) The Court considers each argument

24

in turn.

25

///

26
27
28

2

Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
6
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

A. Whether Rule 9(b) Applies to Plaintiff’s Lanham Act Claim

2

Defendants argue that while the Ninth Circuit has yet to decide whether Rule 9(b)

3

applies to Lanham Act claims, several district courts in the Ninth Circuit have applied Rule

4

9(b) to false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act because such claims are

5

grounded in fraud. (MTD 11–13, ECF No. 28-1.) Plaintiff responds that other courts

6

regularly apply Rule 8 to Lanham Act cases. (Opp’n 23, ECF No. 34.)

7

As to this threshold matter, the Court agrees with the weight of authority that Rule

8

9(b) applies to Lanham Act claims that are grounded in fraud. Courts apply a heightened

9

pleading standard to actions that sound in fraud pursuant to Rule 9(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

9(b) (“In alleging fraud . . . a party must state with particularity the circumstances

11

constituting fraud or mistake.”); see also Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., USA, 317 F.3d 1097,

12

1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Averments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when,

13

where, and how’ of the misconduct charged.”). Rule 9(b) is not limited to claims for fraud

14

itself; rather, it applies if a claim is “grounded in” or “sounds in” fraud. See, e.g., Vess, 317

15

F.3d at 1103–04 (“In cases where fraud is not a necessary element of a claim, a plaintiff

16

may choose nonetheless to allege in the complaint that the defendant has engaged in

17

fraudulent conduct and rely entirely on that course of conduct as the basis of a claim. In

18

that event, the claim is said to be ‘grounded in fraud’ or to ‘sound in fraud,’ and the pleading

19

of that claim as a whole must satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).”). It thus

20

follows that a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act that is “grounded in” or

21

“sounds in” fraud must meet the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b). See, e.g.,

22

Seoul Laser Dieboard Sys. Co., Ltd. v. Serviform, S.r.l., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1200 (S.D.

23

Cal. 2013) (“District courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that the heightened pleading

24

standard of Federal Rule of [Civil] Procedure 9(b) applies to false advertising claims and

25

requires the plaintiff to plead the ‘time, place, and specific content of the false

26

representations,’ the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation, and what about the

27

statement is claimed to be misleading.”).

28

///
7
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

Plaintiff’s allegations in support of its Lanham Act claim are grounded in fraud.

2

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that (1) Defendants changed their advertising to display a

3

picture of a product “modified to make it appear like a less blatant copy,” (FAC ¶ 45, ECF

4

No. 18); (2) advertised and sold bobbleheads “under false pretenses,” (id. ¶ 46); (3)

5

“committed false advertising and used false descriptions,” (id. ¶ 47); and (4) advertised “a

6

product which the Defendants did not own, and were not authorized to sell,” (id. ¶ 48).

7

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Rule 9(b) applies to Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim.

8

B. Whether Plaintiff’s Lanham Act Allegations Satisfy Rule 9(b)

9

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to satisfy Rule 9(b). (MTD 15–18,

10

ECF No. 28-1.) Plaintiff responds that its allegations survive under Rule 9(b). (Opp’n 24–

11

28, ECF No. 34.)

12

The Court partially agrees with Plaintiff. Allegations of fraud must be “specific

13

enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute

14

the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they

15

have done anything wrong.” Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985); see

16

also Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that particularity requires

17

plaintiff to allege the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraudulent

18

conduct). Most of Plaintiff’s allegations have done just that.

19

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants collectively made false statements. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 10,

20

11, 41, 43, 50, 51, ECF No. 18.) The false statements were (1) that Defendants advertised

21

Defendant Work 2 in response to the takedown notices, but actually shipped Defendant

22

Work 1 to customers, (id. ¶¶ 2, 22, Exs. 4, 5); and (2) Defendants’ unauthorized use of the

23

Trump/Pence Presidential Campaign, copyright notice of “© Donald J. Trump,” and claims

24

that their bobblehead is the “official bobblehead doll of the 2016 Donald Trump

25

Presidential campaign,” (id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 47). Plaintiff put Defendants on notice of these

26

allegedly fraudulent advertising practices no later than September 7, 2016, when it sent its

27

first cease and desist letter, (id. ¶¶ 17, 18), and when it sent DMCA takedown notices to

28

various internet service providers, (id. ¶ 19). In addition, the purchase invoice identifies
8
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

the specific time and date of the purchase (October 20, 2016 at 5:21 p.m.) and also provides

2

an invoice number. (Id. Ex. 5); see also Cooper, 137 F.3d at 627 (noting, in the Rule 9(b)

3

context, that courts “do not require a specific number [of shipments] or a precise time

4

frame”). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the false advertisements occurred through various

5

internet service providers, (id. ¶¶ 19, 20, 45, 47), and on Defendants’ websites, (id. ¶¶ 4, 5,

6

47). This is enough to give Defendants fair notice of the alleged fraudulent conduct so that

7

they can adequately defend against the charge.

8

But this conclusion does not apply to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants used

9

Plaintiff’s pictures of its own bobblehead to sell Defendants’ bobbleheads. (See, e.g., id.

10

¶ 48). Plaintiff simply alleges that “at times, Defendants have advertised their bobble head

11

products using actual pictures of the Bobblehead Work.” (Id.) This bare allegation is

12

wholly insufficient under Rule 9(b). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and

13

DENIES IN PART this portion of Defendants’ MTD.

14

C. Whether Plaintiff’s Lanham Act Claim Fails for Other Reasons

15

Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff’s allegations survive analysis under Rule 9(b),

16

Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim fails for five additional reasons: (1) Plaintiff fails to allege

17

standing to pursue a Lanham Act claim under Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static

18

Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014); (2) the Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar

19

Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), bars Plaintiff’s copyright-

20

masked-as-Lanham-Act claim; (3) the Copyright Act does not provide a private right of

21

action for false copyright notice; (4) Plaintiff fails to allege or explain why any of the things

22

it claims are deceptive are “material” under the Lanham Act; and (5) the representations of

23

association between Defendants and the Trump organization are opinion, not actionable

24

facts. (See MTD 18–23, ECF No. 28-1.) The Court considers each argument in turn.

25

1. Standing under Lexmark

26

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged proximate causation and

27

thus fails to establish that it has standing to pursue a Lanham Act claim. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff

28

disagrees. (Opp’n 16–19, ECF No. 34.)
9
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

The Lanham Act “authorizes suit by ‘any person who believes that he or she is likely

2

to be damaged’ by a defendant’s false advertising.” Lexmark, 134 S. Ct. at 1388 (quoting

3

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)). “Under the Lanham Act, a prima facie case requires a showing

4

that (1) the defendant made a false statement either about the plaintiff’s or its own product;

5

(2) the statement was made in commercial advertisement or promotion; (3) the statement

6

actually deceived or had the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (4)

7

the deception is material; (5) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate

8

commerce; and (6) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false

9

statement, either by direct diversion of sales from itself to the defendant, or by a lessening

10

of goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s product.” Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol.,

11

513 F.3d 1038, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

12

Additionally, the Lexmark Court determined that a plaintiff seeking to pursue a

13

Lanham Act claim must demonstrate standing beyond the typical Article III requirements.

14

Lexmark, 134 S. Ct. at 1388–89. First, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it falls within the

15

“zone of interests” protected by the Lanham Act. Id. “[T]o come within the zone of interests

16

in a suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a

17

commercial interest in reputation or sales.” Id. at 1390. Second, a plaintiff must

18

demonstrate that its injuries are proximately caused by violation of the Lanham Act. Id. at

19

1390–91. Specifically, “a plaintiff suing under § 1125(a) ordinarily must show economic

20

or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s

21

advertising; and that that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold

22

trade from the plaintiff.” Id. at 1391.

23

Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff fails to fall within the zone of interests

24

protected by the Lanham Act. Rather, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege

25

proximate causation because there is no allegation that it suffered any kind of reputational

26

or economic injury as a result of the conduct alleged. (MTD 20, ECF No. 28-1.)

27

The Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff responds that Defendants’ false

28

advertising has caused it to suffer damages and that it is entitled to recover Defendants’
10
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

profits from sales stemming from their wrongful conduct. (Opp’n 18, ECF No. 34 (citing

2

FAC ¶¶ 37, 52, ECF No. 18).) But the allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC merely state that

3

Defendants have, for instance, engaged in false advertising by falsely claiming to be

4

associated with the Trump organization, (FAC ¶ 47, ECF No. 18), and this has somehow

5

caused Plaintiff to suffer damages, (id. ¶ 52). There are no more specific allegations of, at

6

the very least, lost sales or damage to its reputation. This is insufficient to plead proximate

7

causation to support a Lanham Act claim. See, e.g., Luxul Tech. Inc. v. Nectarlux, LLC, 78

8

F. Supp. 3d 1156, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege

9

‘an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by

10

the defendant’s misrepresentations.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Lexmark, 134 S. Ct. at

11

1395)).

12

To be sure, Plaintiff argues that “if one product is the ‘official’ product, every other

13

product is unofficial and therefore inferior. Consumers in the market are likely to choose

14

the official product over the unofficial one and thus Defendants, through their false

15

advertising campaign have diverted sales from the Plaintiff . . . .” (Opp’n 18, ECF No. 34.)

16

The Court finds that such allegations might be sufficient to bridge the gap between

17

Defendants’ alleged false advertising and Plaintiff’s alleged damages, thus plausibly

18

alleging proximate cause at the pleading stage. The problem, of course, is that these

19

allegations do not appear in the FAC, and thus are beyond the scope of the Court’s review.

20

See Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In

21

determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the

22

complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a

23

defendant’s motion to dismiss.”) (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

24

this portion of Defendants’ MTD.

25

2. Whether Dastar bars relief

26

Second, Defendant argues that “to the extent the Lanham Act claim is predicated

27

upon the notion that Defendants failed to provide proper attribution for the design or

28

creation of what is clearly a communicative good (i.e., a claim for reverse passing off),
11
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

Dastar controls and the claim is barred.” (MTD 21, ECF No. 28-1.) Plaintiff argues that

2

Defendants’ reliance on Dastar is misplaced because Dastar only prohibits claims brought

3

under the Lanham Act where there is a misrepresentation of the authorship of the goods at

4

issue, which thus does not preclude Plaintiff’s claim based on false endorsement. (Opp’n

5

19–20, ECF No. 34.)

6

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. In Dastar, the Supreme Court considered “whether

7

§ 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), prevents the unaccredited copying of a

8

work.” Dastar, 539 U.S. at 25. The case concerned a company, petitioner Dastar, which

9

purchased copies of a television series in the public domain, copied them, edited the series,

10

and then sold the edited series as its own product without reference to the original series.

11

Id. at 26–27. Respondents Fox, SFM, and New Line argued that Dastar’s sales of its edited

12

video set “without proper credit” to the original television series constituted “reverse

13

passing off” (i.e., a producer misrepresenting someone else’s goods as his own) in violation

14

of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Id. at 27. The gravamen of the claim, under the Lanham Act,

15

was that Dastar made a “false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,

16

or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . . is likely to cause confusion . . . as

17

to the origin . . . of his or her goods.” Id. at 31 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 43(a)). The Court

18

rejected respondents’ claim under the Lanham Act, concluding that the phrase “origin of

19

goods” refers to “the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the

20

author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods.” Id. The Court

21

noted that “[t]o hold otherwise would be akin to finding that § 43(a) created a species of

22

perpetual patent and copyright, which Congress may not do.” Id. The Court thus concluded

23

that Dastar was the “origin” of the products it sold as its own, and thus respondents’

24

Lanham Act claim failed. Id. at 38.

25

Here, Plaintiff’s claim for false advertising does not include any allegation of

26

reverse passing off (i.e., that Defendants are not the manufacturers of the goods they offer

27

on their website). Nor does Plaintiff’s false advertising claim have anything to do with the

28

manufacturer of Defendants’ goods. (Opp’n 20, ECF No. 34.) Rather, among other things,
12
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresented that their goods were somehow endorsed

2

by the Trump organization as an “official” product of the campaign. The Court agrees with

3

Plaintiff that this claim of false endorsement is unrelated to the authorship or origin of

4

Defendants’ bobbleheads, and thus Dastar does not bar Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim. (Id.

5

at 20–21.) And Defendants do not contest Plaintiff’s arguments in their Reply. (See

6

generally Reply, ECF No. 36.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES this portion of

7

Defendants’ MTD.
3. Plaintiff’s reliance on an allegedly false copyright notice

8
9

Third, Defendants argue that “to the extent Plaintiff complains of Defendants using

10

an alleged false copyright notice, such a claim must fail because the Copyright Act covers

11

that kind of activity, but does not allow for a private right of action.” (MTD 22, ECF No.

12

28-1 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 506(c) (criminalizing fraudulent use of copyright notice), Donald

13

Frederick Evans v. Continental Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897, 912–13 (11th Cir. 1986)

14

(holding that there is no private right of action under 17 U.S.C. § 506(c), which was

15

intended to be only a criminal statute).)

16

The Court agrees with Defendants on the law, but Defendants’ argument misses the

17

mark. Plaintiff is not asserting a claim for alleged misuse of a copyright notice. (Opp’n 21,

18

ECF No. 34.) Rather, Plaintiff’s false advertising claim is partially premised on

19

“Defendants’ false use [of] a copyright notice as part and parcel of [their] overall false

20

advertising message—e.g.[,] our product is the ‘official’ product of the Donald Trump

21

campaign.” (Id.) So cabined, neither Section 506(c) nor Donald Frederick Evans bar

22

Plaintiff’s reliance on the misleading copyright notice as part of Defendants’ overall false

23

advertising scheme. Cf. TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 827–29 (9th

24

Cir. 2011) (affirming district court holding that falsely suggesting an affiliation with the

25

California DMV was misleading to consumers under the Lanham Act). Accordingly, the

26

Court DENIES this portion of Defendants’ MTD.

27

///

28

///
13
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

4. Whether the “materiality” of the alleged misrepresentations are plausible

2

Fourth, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff fails to allege or explain why any of the

3

things that it claims are supposedly deceptive are ‘material.’” (MTD 22–23, ECF No. 28-

4

1.) For instance, Defendants argue “so what” if some customers who thought they were

5

ordering Defendant Work 2 (where Clinton has both of her hands in front of her in

6

handcuffs) instead actually received Defendant Work 1 (where Clinton has one hand in

7

front of her and the other hand resting on her side)—the joke of the bobblehead is the same

8

regardless of the subtle variation in her hand position. (Id.) But the Court agrees with

9

Plaintiff that this argument skirts the allegation that literally false statements (and images)

10

were used to market Defendants’ bobbleheads, and thus these allegations are presumed to

11

have deceived consumers. (Opp’n 14, ECF No. 34 (citing, e.g., Avid Identification Sys.,

12

Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 33 F. App’x 854, 856 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because these

13

representations were literally false, the statements carry with them the presumption that

14

consumers relied on and were deceived by them.”)).) Defendants will have an opportunity

15

to attack the materiality of these statements at a later phase of the case—but not now.

16

Accordingly, the Court DENIES this portion of Defendants’ MTD.

17
18

5. Whether the represented associations with the Trump organization are
opinions or actionable facts

19

Finally, Defendants argue that “to the extent the Lanham claim is predicated upon

20

the supposedly false association between the Defendants and the Trump organization, or

21

upon attributing copyright ownership to ‘Donald J. Trump,’ those statements are opinions,

22

not actionable facts.” (MTD 23, ECF No. 28-1 (citing, e.g., Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v.

23

First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731–32 (9th Cir. 1999); S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. Snow

24

Wizard Holdings, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 437, 452 (E.D. La. 2011)).)

25

In the present case, “[l]iability under the relevant provision of the Lanham Act

26

requires, among other things, a ‘false or misleading representation of fact.’” Coastal, 173

27

F.3d at 730 (emphasis in original) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)). Statements that

28

amount merely to “puffery” do not qualify as statements of fact capable of being proven
14
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

false. Id. at 731 (concluding that the statement that Coastal was “too small” to handle

2

business was puffery). An actionable fact is one that is “capable of being proved false or

3

of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact.” Id. at 731; see also

4

Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A specific

5

and measurable advertisement claim of product superiority based on product testing is not

6

puffery.”). Courts may determine as a matter of law whether certain statements are

7

statements of fact, actionable under the Lanham Act, or mere puffery, and may do so at the

8

motion to dismiss stage. Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911

9

F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1990).

10

None of Defendants’ cited cases support their argument. In Coastal, the Ninth

11

Circuit considered whether First American’s statement that Coastal did not have an escrow

12

license was actionable under the Lanham Act, since California Financial Code § 17200

13

makes it unlawful to engage in business as an escrow agent without an appropriate license.

14

173 F.3d at 731. First American’s statement thus clearly implied that § 17200 required

15

Coastal to have a license for its activities. Id. The court noted that “statements by

16

laypersons that purport to interpret the meaning of a statute or regulation are opinion

17

statements, and not statements of fact,” id., and that “the correct application of § 17200

18

was not knowable to the parties at the time that First American made the licensure

19

statement.” Id. at 732. Thus, the Court concluded that “the licensure statement as a matter

20

of law could not give rise to a Lanham Act claim.” Id.

21

There is no statute to interpret in assessing the claimed association with the Trump

22

organization. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants claimed that they were the official

23

bobblehead of the Trump campaign and that Trump copyrighted their website. Whether or

24

not the Trump organization did, in fact, sponsor Defendants’ bobbleheads or claim

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
15
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

copyright in the website are “knowable” facts, not opinions. Accordingly, Coastal is

2

inapplicable.3

3

Nor does Defendants’ reliance on Southern Snow fare any better. In Southern Snow,

4

the court considered whether the use of a “TM” symbol next to the term “Vanilla” was an

5

opinion or fact for purposes of a the Lanham Act claim. 829 F. Supp. 2d at 452. The Court

6

considered the issue at length, concluding that

7
VanillaTM does not make a statement that admits of being
adjudged true or false in a way that “admits of empirical
verification.” VanillaTM makes the statement that the party is
claiming rights to the flavor name as a trademark, as
preposterous as that assertion might be. But the TM symbol does
not mean that the party has trademark rights in the name or can
ensure that the mark is capable of serving as a trademark or that
the party could meet its burden of proof as to secondary meaning
if a court were so indulgent so as to allow a party to try. VanillaTM
might be described as an oxymoron but it is not a literally false
statement.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Id. at 453–54. The Court also contrasted the use of a generic “TM” symbol with the ®

17

symbol, which connotes federal registration. As the Court explained:

18

In order to determine if “Vanilla TM” is actionable as a literally
false statement, it is necessary to ascertain exactly what
information or statement can fairly be attributed to placing a ®
or TM next to any product name. With respect to the ® symbol
the answer is clear. The owner of a trademark registered in the
USPTO may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying
“the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ®.” 15 U.S.C.A. §
1111 (West 2009). Improper use of a registration notice in
connection with an unregistered mark may be grounds for
denying the registration of an otherwise registerable mark.
Copelands’ Enters., Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 1566 (Fed.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

True, there is a statute governing copyrights and their registrations, see 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., but, as
discussed below, a claim of copyright can be verified and thus is arguably a statement of fact actionable
under the Lanham Act.
16
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

Cir. 1991) (citing Fed. Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
544 F.2d 1098, 1101 (C.C.P.A. 1976)). Thus, use of the ®
symbol conveys to the customer and to other competitors that the
trademark is in fact registered with the USPTO.

2
3
4

...

5
Given that use of the ® symbol makes an affirmative statement
that the USPTO has registered the symbol, it is plausible that a
literally false statement is being made when a party appends the
® symbol to a mark that is not federally registered. Appending
the ® statement to a mark makes a statement that admits of being
adjudged true or false in a way that “admits of empirical
verification.” Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 496. So unauthorized use of
the ® could perhaps form the basis for making a literally false
statement.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Id. at 452–53.

14

Though unclear, Defendants presumably rely on Southern Snow to argue that their

15

use of a copyright symbol in connection with the Trump organization’s copyright of their

16

website is opinion, not actionable fact. To be sure, copyright protection exists without

17

federal registration, so long as it is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible

18

medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). In that sense, saying that something is

19

copyrighted is arguably akin to using the generic “TM” symbol to express an opinion of

20

ownership of rights. And unlike the ® symbol, affixing the symbol © is permissive and

21

does not require federal registration.4 See 17 U.S.C. § 401(a) (“Whenever a work protected

22

under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright

23

owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly

24

distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with

25
26
4

27
28

However, fixation of copyright notice also provides certain federal benefits, see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 401(d)
(providing that proper copyright notice negates a defense of innocent infringement), and thus it shares
similarities with federal trademark registration.

17
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

the aid of a machine or device.” (emphasis added)); id. § 401(b)(1) (“If a notice appears on

2

the copies, it shall consist of . . . the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word

3

‘Copyright’, or the abbreviation ‘Copr.’; and . . . .”).

4

But there is a conceptual difference between this case and a case like Southern Snow.

5

In Southern Snow, the plaintiff’s use of the TM symbol in Vanilla TM demonstrated its belief

6

in its own alleged rights in the term. Here, in contrast, Defendants claim that someone else

7

(the Trump organization) claims some right (a copyright) in, among other things,

8

Defendants’ website. Whether or not the Trump organization does, in fact, claim to have

9

such copyrights is an ascertainable fact and thus is actionable under the Lanham Act.

10

Indeed, the Copyright Act expressly provides criminal penalties for a false claim of

11

copyright protection, and such claims can be verified.5 See 17 U.S.C. § 506 (“Any person

12

who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same

13

purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly

14

distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that

15

such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.”); see also S. Snow,

16

829 F. Supp. 2d at 453 n.14 (“Of course, a false claim that a work is copyrighted or

17

patented, like a false claim that a mark is federally registered, is a statement that admits of

18

empirical verification.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES this portion of Defendants’

19

MTD.

20

II.

Statutory Fees and Damages Under the Copyright Act

21

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to statutory fees and damages

22

under the Copyright Act. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot seek statutory

23

damages and attorney’s fees for infringement of the Bobbleheads.com Work—that is, the

24

full Clinton bobblehead—because the FAC alleges that Plaintiff applied to register the full

25

doll on September 2, 2016 and sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants a mere five days

26
27
28

5

It bears repeating that Plaintiff is not asserting a claim for fraudulent copyright notice. Rather, Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants’ false use of a copyright notice is “part and parcel of [their] overall false
advertising message.” (Opp’n 21, ECF No. 34.)
18
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

later on September 7, 2015. (MTD 23–24, ECF No. 28-1.) In other words, this timeline

2

“makes it obvious that Plaintiff learned of the alleged infringement before it applied for the

3

‘Full Clinton Doll’ registration.” (Reply 8, ECF No. 36.)

4

Defendants are right that the Copyright Act bars an award of statutory damages or

5

of attorney’s fees based on, for example, “any infringement of copyright commenced after

6

first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such

7

registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.” 17 U.S.C.

8

§ 412(2). But there is nothing “obvious” about the timeline barring Plaintiff’s claim for

9

statutory damages or attorney’s fees. Indeed, accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true—as

10

the Court must at this stage—Plaintiff simply alleges that it (1) applied for copyright

11

protection for the Bobbleheads.com Work on September 2, 2016, (FAC ¶ 15, ECF No. 18),

12

and (2) sent a cease a desist letter to Defendants on September 7, 2016, (id. ¶ 17). Nothing

13

more. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that at this juncture the date on which Defendants

14

began—and continued—their infringement is unknown. (Opp’n 29–30, ECF No. 34.) Thus

15

it would be inappropriate to legally bar Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees and statutory

16

damages at the pleading stage. Accordingly, the Court DENIES this portion of Defendants’

17

MTD.6

18

Second, Defendants argue that the FAC is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff is

19

asserting infringement of two copyrighted works or only one. Specifically, while the FAC

20

alleges that Plaintiff “filed an application covering the head of the Bobbleheads.com Work

21
22
Defendants further argue that this “same issue is discussed more fully in the accompanying motion to
dismiss in the related Trump Case, where the same plaintiff’s counsel similarly refused to remove their
prayer for attorneys’ fees and statutory damages under the Copyright Act from an amended pleading. The
legal argument and authorities in that motion about why it is not plausible to simply assume that the
infringement began during the brief window of time between registration and cease and desist letters being
sent is incorporated here by reference.” (MTD 24, ECF No. 17.) But this case is not consolidated with the
related case. Nor have Defendants sought leave of the Court to exceed the briefing page limits under the
local rules to incorporate by reference any arguments or authorities appearing in their other motion in the
related case. If those arguments and authorities were critical to Defendants’ present motion, they should
have appeared in their opening memorandum in this case. Accordingly, the Court will consider the
arguments presented in the related motion to dismiss when assessing that motion to dismiss, but not here.
6

23
24
25
26
27
28

19
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

on or about May 13, 2016,” (FAC ¶ 15, ECF No. 18 (the Clinton Head registration)), the

2

FAC does not actually alleged that the Clinton Head registration has been infringed by

3

Defendants. (MTD 25, ECF No. 28-1.)

4

The Court agrees. While Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed “the

5

Bobbleheads.com Work [based on] the corresponding copyright applications,” (FAC ¶ 28,

6

ECF No. 18), the allegations forming the basis of Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim

7

do not mention any similarity between the bobbleheads. Rather, Plaintiff’s allegations

8

focus on everything but the head:

9
The Bobbleheads.com Work and Defendant Work 1 both have:
(i) a black and white striped prison suit, with the lines oriented
in the same manner and the same design, (ii) a tag next to the
lapel with the term “HC2016”, (iii) an orange under shirt, (iv) a
white pearl necklace, (v) a right arm that runs along the side of
the body and a left arm that bends across the mid-section of the
body, with the hands and fingers on each arm placed in the same
or similar positions, (vi) black shoes, (vii) feet in a similar
position, (viii) a straight left leg and a bent right leg, and (ix) a
black ball and chain connected to the right ankle. Defendant
Work 1 is a copy of the Bobbleheads.com Work. Alternatively,
Defendant Work 1 is a derivative work of the Bobbleheads.com
Work.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(Id. ¶ 31; see also id. ¶ 32 (describing similarity between the Bobbleheads.com Work and

21

Defendant Work 2).) These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for copyright

22

infringement as to the Full Clinton registration, but they are insufficient to state a claim for

23

copyright infringement as to the Clinton Head registration, and thus the Court GRANTS

24

Defendants’ MTD on this issue.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
20
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

3

PART Defendants’ MTD (ECF No. 28). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

4

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s FAC. Consistent with this Opinion, Plaintiff

5

SHALL FILE an amended complaint, if any, on or before fourteen (14) days of the date

6

on which this Order is electronically docketed.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2017

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
16-CV-2790 JLS (AGS)