eMove, Inc. et al v. Hire a Helper LLC et al

Filing 199

ORDER Regarding Motion to Exclude Testimony of Mark Kegan [Doc. No. 168 ] and Motion to Exclude Testimony of Jonathan Hibbard [Doc. No. 164 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 9/27/2018. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

EMOVE, INC., a Nevada corporation, and
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL INC., a
Nevada corporation,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 17cv0535-CAB-JLB
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF MARK
KEEGAN [Doc. No. 168] AND
MOTION TO EXLUDE TESTIMONY
OF JONATHAN HIBBARD [Doc. No.
164]

Plaintiffs,
v.
HIRE A HELPER LLC, a California
limited liability company, and MICHAEL
GLANZ, an individual,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Mark Keegan.
[Doc. No. 168.] On June 8, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of
Jonathan Hibbard. [Doc. No. 164.] The motions are fully briefed.
Defendants designated Mr. Keegan as an expert in trademark consumer surveys to
“determine whether the phrases MOVING HELP and MOVING HELPER are understood
by consumers to be brand names or common names (i.e. generic phrases) with regard to
moving services.” [Doc. No. 168-3 at 5, ¶1.]

Plaintiffs designated Mr. Hibbard as a

rebuttal expert.
As this Court has previously stated, it will not adjudicate the issue of whether the
trademarks are generic, as that was the subject of the previous litigation. Nevertheless,
1
17cv0535-CAB-JLB

1

Defendants argue Mr. Keegan’s testimony is relevant to the issue of whether the Non-

2

Opposition Clause is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. On March 20, 2018, this

3

Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of that issue because there was

4

no showing of significant public injury. [Doc. No. 117 at 6.] Defendants argue that Mr.

5

Keegan’s testimony is evidence of such public injury.

6

After conducting a consumer survey, Mr. Keegan concludes that “MOVING HELP

7

and MOVING HELPER are generic, common names with respect to the moving services

8

market.” [Doc. No. 168-3 at 20, ¶55.] Assuming for purposes of argument that this

9

conclusion is accurate, it speaks only to whether there is public confusion. It does not

10

speak to whether there is public injury. Consumer injury is a separate inquiry from

11

consumer confusion and “involve[s] a far greater level of harm.” Times Mirror Magazines,

12

Inc. v. Field & Stream Licenses Co., 103 F.Supp.2d 711, 740 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d 294

13

F.3d 383, 395 (2d. Cir. 2002)(“in order to obtain rescission of a freely bargained trademark

14

contract, a party must show that the public interest will be significantly injured if the

15

contract is allowed to stand”). See also Puck v. Zwiener, No. CV 08-3394 GAF (PLAx),

16

2008 WL 11339974, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2008)(preliminary injunction denied where

17

plaintiff only showed consumer confusion, but not consumer injury).

18

After reviewing Mr. Keegan’s report, the Court is unable to find any opinion related

19

to whether there was consumer injury. Therefore, Mr. Keegan’s (and Mr. Hibbard’s)

20

testimony is irrelevant and is EXCLUDED.

21

testimony of Mr. Keegan and Mr. Hibbard are DENIED AS MOOT.

22

Dated: September 27, 2018

The Daubert motions to exclude the

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv0535-CAB-JLB