Digital Satellite Connections, LLC et al v. DISH Network Corporation et al

Filing 196

ORDER CONCERNING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction [# 104 , restricted filing # 97 ] is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [# 101 , restricted filing# 100 ], is GRANTED in part. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/20/2014.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02934-REB-CBS
DIGITAL SATELLITE CONNECTIONS, LLC, and,
KATHY KING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
DISH NETWORK, LLC, and
DISHNET SATELLITE BROADBAND, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER CONCERNING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and permanent Injunction [#104, restricted filing #97]1; and (2)
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#101, restricted filing #100] . Both
motions were filed on July 31, 2014. The parties filed responses [#117 & #118] and
replies [#137 & #139]. I deny the motion filed by the plaintiffs, and I grant in part the
motion filed by the defendants.
I. JURISDICTION
I have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28
U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity), 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (trademark), and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a)

1

“[#104]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

(trademark).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a);
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” if the issue
could be resolved in favor of either party. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d
1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 1994). A fact is “material” if it might reasonably affect the outcome
of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Farthing, 39
F.3d at 1134.
A party who does not have the burden of proof at trial must show the absence of
a genuine issue of fact. Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d
1513, 1517 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1004 (1995). By contrast, a movant
who bears the burden of proof must submit evidence to establish every essential
element of its claim or affirmative defense. See In re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 209 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1111 (D. Colo. 2002).
In either case, once the motion has been properly supported, the burden shifts to
the nonmovant to show by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent
evidence that summary judgment is not proper. Concrete Works, 36 F.3d at 1518. All
evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse
2

The issues raised by and inherent to the motions for summary judgment are fully briefed,
obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument. Thus, the motions stand submitted on the
papers. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir.1988)
(holding that any hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by court's review of
documents submitted by parties).

2

Services, 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 815 (1999)
(abrogated on otr grounds, Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210 - 1211 (10th Cir.
2003); Eisenhour v. Weber Cnty., 744 F.3d 1220, 1227 (10th Cir. 2014)). However,
conclusory statements and testimony based merely on conjecture or subjective belief
are not competent summary judgment evidence. Rice v. United States, 166 F.3d
1088, 1092 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 334 (1999).
III. FACTS
Plaintiff, Kathy King, owns and operates the entity plaintiff, Digital Satellite
Connections, LLC. The defendants, Dish Network Corporation and related entities
(collectively “Dish”), offer satellite based telecommunications services to consumers.
Donald King, the brother of Kathy King, became a Dish retailer in May 1998. Mr. King
created a company named Digital Satellite Connections (DSC). Digital Satellite
Connections was a sole proprietorship or d/b/a. Werner Declaration [#100 - filed under
restriction], Exhibit 5 [#100-1 filed under restriction], p. 1.
In May 1999, Donald King registered the internet domain name dishnet.com. He
used that domain name to display a web page exhorting consumers to contact DSC to
purchase Dish Network services. Mr. King also registered the internet domain names
dishnetworks.com, dishnetworksatellite.com, and dishnet500.com. He used these
domain names to advertise the sale of Dish Network services.
Donald King died in October 2000. His wife, Catherine King, operated DSC for a
time. According to plaintiff, Kathy King, she took over the operation of DSC at some
point in time in the years 2002 to 2004. The plaintiff continued to operate the business
as her predecessors had, selling Dish services to consumers as an authorized Dish
dealer and using the name Digital Satellite Connections. The plaintiff continued to
3

operate the business as an authorized Dish dealer until the end of 2012. At the end of
2012, Ms. King did not renew DSC’s contract with Dish.
It is undisputed that DSC, as a sole proprietorship operated by Kathy King,
executed a Dish Network Retailer Agreement which became effective “as of December
31, 2010.” Werner Declaration [#100 - filed under restriction], Exhibit 7 [#100-3 filed
under restriction] (Agreement). In their response [#118] to the motion for summary
judgment of the defendants, the plaintiffs contend there is a genuine issue of fact as to
whether this agreement was executed on behalf of DSC. However, the deposition
testimony of Ms. King demonstrates conclusively that she intended to accept the 2010
agreement and that she knew she had to accept that agreement to continue working as
a Dish dealer. Kane Declaration [#139-1], Exhibit 1 [#139-2] (King Transcript), 155:5 155:15. Ms. King knew someone in the offices of DSC was accepting Dish Network
Retailer Agreements on behalf of Digital Satellite Connections because the agreements
had to be accepted if DSC was to continue as a Dish retailer. Id., 155:8 - 155:15.
Further, Ms. King testified that she has no reason to dispute the contention of Dish that
DSC electronically accepted the terms and conditions of a Dish retailer agreement with
an effective date of December 31, 2010. Id., 157:25 - 158:11. The Agreement names
the retailer and trademark licensee as “KATHY KING DBA DIGITAL SATELLITE
CONNECTIONS.” Agreement, pp. 1, 38.
The Agreement includes a section titled “Trademark License Agreement.”
Agreement, pp. 33 - 38. The Trademark License Agreement defines the term
“Identifying Communication Information” as
any trade name, assumed name, domain name, telephone number (tollfree or otherwise), IP address, text messaging address, or any other letter,
number, character or combination thereof used in commerce that includes
4

or refers to any Trademark, whether in whole or in part, whether
separately, formatively or otherwise, and whether properly spelled or in
any typographical derivation or misspelling thereof.
Agreement, p. 34, ¶ 1(c)((i). Paragraph 7 of the Trademark License Agreement
includes the following terms:
Licensee (DSC) agrees not to hold itself out as DISH Network, DISH, any
DISH Affiliate, or any other related or affiliated entity. To avoid any
confusion in this respect, unless otherwise expressly agreed to in advance
in a writing signed by an Executive Vice President of DISH (or his or her
designee), Licensee agrees not to use, register, submit an application for,
obtain, acquire or otherwise seek as part of its business name, trade
name or otherwise any trademark or service mark that DISH at Any Time
in its Sole Discretion deems to be confusingly similar to any of the
Trademarks, Formative Marks or any other trademark with respect to
which DISH or any of its Affiliates (i) has registered; (ii) used in commerce,
or (iii) is then seeking or otherwise pursuing registration (whether within
the Territory or otherwise). In addition to (and without limitation of) any of
the foregoing, Licensee agrees not to, and shall ensure that its Affiliates, if
any, do not, register, submit an application for, obtain or otherwise use
any Identifying Communications Information that DISH at Any Time in its
Sole Discretion deems to be confusingly similar to: (a) any Identifying
Communications Information then being used by DISH or any of its
Affiliates, or (b) any Identifying Communications Information that DISH
advises Licensee that either DISH or any of its Affiliates intends to use.
* * * * *
Licensee further agrees to immediately transfer to DISH or its designated
Affiliate(s), upon DISH’s request, all right, title and interest in, to and under
any trademark, service mark, or Identifying Communications Information
that Licensee has registered, submitted an application for, obtained,
acquired, or otherwise sought to register in contravention of any of the
provisions of this Agreement, any applicable Business Rules and/or the
Usage Standards. Licensee’s failure to comply with the provisions of this
Section 7 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
* * * * *
Licensee’s obligations in this Section 7 shall survive the expiration or
termination (for any reason or no reason whatsoever) of this Agreement
indefinitely.
Agreement, pp. 35 - 35, ¶ 7.
Paragraph eight of the Trademark License Agreement provides further:

5

Licensee will also fully cooperate with DISH and its Affiliates in the
defense and protection of the Trademarks (whether in typewritten, stylized
or any other form), at DISH’s and/or its Affiliates’ expense. Similarly,
nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require that DISH and/or
its Affiliates take any action to protect any of the Trademarks in any
instance, and DISH and its Affiliates shall not be liable to Licensee in any
manner whatsoever for failure to take any such action.
Agreement, p. 36, ¶ 8.3
While the Agreement was in force, DISH filed applications to register the mark
DISHNET (U.S. Serial Nos. 85576543 and 85576536) (filed on March 22, 2012) and
began offering its DISHNET high-speed satellite internet service to consumers later in
the year. Kasnevich Declaration [#101-1], Exhibits 35 and 36 [#101-36 & 101-37]
(applications); Werner Declaration [#100 - filed under restriction], ¶ 27. Dish contacted
Ms. King and demanded that she transfer the dishnet.com domain name to Dish as
required by the Trademark License Agreement. Werner Declaration [#100 - filed under
restriction], ¶ 28. Ms. King refused to transfer the domain name and elected not to sign
a new agreement with Dish when the Agreement expired on December 31, 2012.
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants have not provided sufficient evidence to
prove that Dish demanded transfer of the DISHNET trademark and dishnet.com domain
name during the term of the Agreement. However, Ms. King does not deny that after
this suit was filed in 2013, Dish demanded transfer of the trademark and domain name.
Response [#118], p. 4.
Immediately after the Agreement expired, Ms. King filed incorporation papers for
a new company, Digital Satellite Connections, LLC (DSC LLC), with an effective date of
December 31, 2012. Kasnevich Declaration [#101-1], Exhibit 29 [#101-30]. Also on

3

The term “Trademarks” is defined on page 34 in paragraph 1 (c)(iii) of the Trademark License
Agreement.

6

December 31, 2012, Ms. King executed an assignment of trademarks and domain
names, assigning DISHNET, dishnet.com, and other trademarks, servicemarks, trade
names, and domain names to DSC LLC. Kasnevich Declaration [#101-1], Exhibit 30
[#101-31]. As a result, plaintiff DSC LLC now claims ownership of and the right to use
the mark DISHNET and the domain name dishnet.com.
In their complaint [#3] the plaintiffs assert seven claims against Dish: (1)
permanent injunction; (2) trademark infringement - 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (3) false
designation of origin, false descriptions, and unfair competition - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
(4) trademark infringement under Florida statutory law; (5) trademark infringement
under Florida common law; (6) contributory trademark infringement; and (7) breach of
contract. Most of the claims of the plaintiffs are based on their contention that Dish is
wrongfully using the DISHNET trademark allegedly owned by Digital Satellite
Connections, LLC. The breach of contract claim is based on the allegation that Dish
failed to pay to Ms. King amounts due under the Agreement for referral of customers to
Dish by Ms. King. The plaintiffs seek an injunction, recovery of profits derived from the
improper use of the trademark DISHNET, treble damages for trademark infringement,
breach of contract damages, and other relief.
Dish asserts ten counterclaims against the plaintiffs: (1) breach of contract based
on the retailer agreements, including the 2010 Agreement; (2) trademark infringement 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (3) trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair
competition - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) false advertising - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (5)
trademark infringement and unfair competition - common law; (6) deceptive trade
practices - Colorado Consumer Protection Act; (7) deceptive and unfair trade practices Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (8) cybersquatting - 15 U.S.C. §
7

1125(d); (9) trademark dilution - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (10) fraud on the Florida
Department of State. Dish seeks an injunction prohibiting the plaintiffs from using Dish
Network trademarks, including DISHNET, an accounting of the profits of DSC and King
derived from their allegedly improper actions, transfer of the dishnet.com domain name
to Dish, statutory damages, specific performance, punitive damages, costs, and other
relief. Answer [#5].
IV. ANALYSIS
Nearly all of the claims and counterclaims hinge on a determination of which
party has the legal right to own and use the trademark DISHNET and the domain name
dishnet.com . Viewing the undisputed facts in the record in the light most favorable to
the plaintiffs, I conclude as a matter of law that under the terms of the 2010 Agreement,
defendant DISH Network, LLC and its affiliates, as the term “Affiliates” is defined in the
Agreement, are entitled to ownership and use of the trademark DISHNET and the
related domain name dishnet.com.
Under the terms of the 2010 Agreement, Kathy King and her d/b/a, Digital
Satellite Connections, were obligated to transfer to DISH Network, LLC ownership of
and the rights to use the trademark DISHNET and the domain name dishnet.com. At
the latest, that obligation arose when Dish Network, LLC demanded such a transfer
from Ms. King and Digital Satellite Connections. The evidence in the record does not
show a genuine dispute as to any fact material to a determination of the application of
the terms of the 2010 Agreement to this issue.
A. Claims of the Plaintiffs
The defendants seek summary judgment on each of the claims of the plaintiff.
Claims two through six, as alleged in the complaint [#3], each require the plaintiffs to
8

prove that DISHNET is a protectable trademark owned by one or both of the plaintiffs.
However, I conclude that defendant DISH Network, LLC and its affiliates are legally
entitled to the ownership and use of the DISHNET trademark. That was true while the
2010 Agreement was in effect and remained true after the Agreement expired. When
plaintiff Kathy King sought to transfer her purported rights to the DISHNET mark and the
dishnet.com domain name to plaintiff DSC LLC, Ms. King was not legally entitled to
those rights. Of course, she could not transfer rights to which she is not legally entitled.
Given these facts, the plaintiffs cannot establish at least one of the essential elements
of their claims two through six.
Claim one, the claim of the plaintiffs for injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants
from using the DISHNET mark, also fails because this claim requires the plaintiffs to
show that DISHNET is a protectable trademark owned by one or both of the plaintiffs.
Thus, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on claims one through six.
The breach of contract claim asserted by the plaintiffs is based on their
allegations that Dish failed to pay Ms. King amounts due to her based on her referral of
customers to Dish while the Agreement was in effect. Under the terms of the
Agreement, these claims now are barred. First, any claims of Ms. King which arose
before the 2010 Agreement became effective are barred under paragraph 2.10.2 of the
Agreement. Agreement, pp. 7 - 8, ¶ 2.10.12. Second, under the terms of the
Agreement, any claim by Ms. King for any non-payment of fees by Dish must be
submitted to Dish within 90 days of the occurrence of the relevant event. Agreement, p.
24, ¶ 15.1. Absent compliance with this contractual requirement, Ms. King waived or
forfeited her claim. It is undisputed that Ms. King did not submit any notice concerning
her breach of contract claim to Dish under the terms of this portion of the Agreement.
9

Thus, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
B. Counterclaims of the Defendants
Dish seeks summary judgment on its first, second, and third counterclaims. The
first counterclaim is for breach of contract based on the Dish retailer agreements with
Ms. King and DSC. The second counterclaim is for trademark infringement under 15
U.S.C. § 1114. The third counterclaim is for trademark infringement, false designation
of origin, and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
Under Colorado law, which controls the breach of contract claim, a party claiming
breach of contract must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) performance by the
party claiming breach; (3) failure to perform by the other party; and (4) resulting
damages. Western Distributing Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P.2d 1053, 1058 (Colo.1992).
The undisputed facts in the record show the existence of a contract – the 2010
Agreement – performance by Dish, and a failure to perform by Ms. King. Ms. King
failed to transfer the DISHNET mark and the dishnet.com domain name to Dish. Thus,
Dish is entitled to summary judgment on these three elements of its breach of contract
claim. However, the undisputed facts in the record do not show what damages, if any,
Dish suffered as a result of the breach by Ms. King. In its motion, Dish does not
address the proof required to establish its claim for specific performance. Thus, the
claim for specific performance remains unresolved as well.
Trademark infringement is a type of unfair competition. A claim of trademark
infringement and a claim of unfair competition based on a trademark have essentially
identical elements and are properly addressed together. Utah Lighthouse Ministry v.
Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045, 1050 (10th Cir. 2008). To
prevail on its second or third counterclaims, Dish must show: (1) Dish owns a
10

protectable trademark; (2) the defendants used the trademark in connection with goods
or services; and (3) use of the trademark by the defendants “is likely to cause confusion,
or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her
goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125
(a)(1)(A); Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 527 F.3d at 1050. For relief on these
counterclaims, Dish seeks an award of damages, treble damages for willful
infringement, and an injunction prohibiting Ms. King and Digital Satellite Connections,
LLC from using the DISHNET trademark and the dishnet.com domain name.
The undisputed facts in the record demonstrate that Dish owns a protectable
trademark, DISHNET, and that the defendants have used and are using that mark in
connection with goods or services. Thus, Dish is entitled to summary judgment on
these two elements.
In evaluating whether there is a likelihood of confusion, courts examine six
nonexhaustive factors:
(1) evidence of actual confusion between the marks, (2) the strength of the
contesting mark, (3) the intent of the alleged infringer in adopting the
contested mark, (4) the degree of similarity between the marks, (5) the
similarity of the parties' services and manner in which they market them,
and (6) the degree of care consumers are likely to exercise in purchasing
those services.
Vail Associates, Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., 516 F.3d 853, 863 (10th Cir. 2008). In this
case, there is some evidence of actual confusion, that the DISHNET mark is a strong
mark, that the mark used by the defendants is essentially identical to the mark owned
by Dish, and the similarity of the services offered by Dish and by the defendants.
However, the issue of the intent of the plaintiffs in using the DISHNET mark, including

11

willful infringement of the DISHNET mark, cannot be resolved on the current record. To
some extent, the evidence relevant to these issues runs together. These issues are
more appropriately resolved based on a full presentation of evidence at trial. Thus, I
deny the motion for summary judgment of Dish on the issue of likelihood of confusion,
including the intent of the defendants, and on the issue of willful trademark infringement.
C. Motion for Summary Judgment of the Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment on their trademark related claims
two through six. In addition, the plaintiffs seek summary judgment on the breach of
contract counterclaim of Dish, counterclaim one, the trademark related counterclaims of
Dish, counterclaims two through nine, and the fraud claim of Dish, counterclaim ten. In
addition, the plaintiffs seek summary judgment on the affirmative defenses asserted by
Dish: failure to state a claim, claims barred by contract, waiver, abandonment, prior
rights, and equitable doctrines, such as laches. The motion of the plaintiffs is denied.
With the exception of the breach of contract claim, the affirmative claims of the
plaintiffs are based on their contention that Dish wrongfully is using the DISHNET
trademark allegedly owned by DSC LLC. I conclude as a matter of law that under the
terms of the 2010 Agreement, defendant Dish Network LLC and its affiliates, as the
term “Affiliates” is defined in the Agreement, are entitled to ownership and use of the
trademark DISHNET and the related dishnet.com domain name. Thus, I must deny the
motion for summary judgment of the plaintiffs on their trademark claims two through six.
Given the terms of the Agreement and the other undisputed facts in the record,
the plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract
counterclaim of Dish. Rather, for the reasons stated above, Dish is entitled to summary
judgment on three of the key elements of its breach of contract claim. Given the
12

conclusion that Dish has the right to use the DISHNET mark, it is not proper to award
summary judgment to the plaintiff on any of the trademark related counterclaims of
Dish, counterclaims two through nine.
Counteclaim ten is a claim of fraud on the Florida Department of State. In
essence, Dish alleges that Ms. King and DSC LLC filed a Florida trademark application
seeking to register “DishNet” as a trademark. Answer [#5], p. 26, ¶ 26. In that
application, Dish alleges, the plaintiffs falsely represented that they knew of no other
party with rights to the mark. Id., pp. 26 - 27, ¶¶ 30 - 32. On this basis, Dish alleges
that the Florida trademark registration obtained by the plaintiffs is subject to cancellation
under Florida law and seeks an order directing the Florida Department of State to
cancel the registration. In addition, Dish alleges that this registration caused it to suffer
damages.
The plaintiffs argue that this claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted because Dish has failed to plead its fraud claim with the
specificity required by FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b). Dish has specified the specific allegedly
fraudulent statement made by the plaintiffs, the place where the statements were made,
the reasons the statements allegedly were false, and the time the statements were
made. Answer [#5], pp. 26 - 27, ¶¶ 30 - 32. These allegations satisfy the requirements
of Rule 9(b). In addition, the plaintiffs contend Dish improperly seeks relief from the
Florida Department of State. If the Florida trademark registration is invalid because of
the alleged fraud, the plaintiffs cite no valid reason to conclude that this court does not
have the authority to direct the Florida Department of State to cancel the registration.
V. CONCLUSION & ORDERS
Viewing the undisputed facts in the record in the light most favorable to the
13

plaintiffs, I find and conclude that defendants Dish Network Corporation,
Dish Network, LLC, and Dishnet Satellite Broadband, LLC, are entitled to summary
judgment on each of the claims of the plaintiffs, as alleged in the complaint [#3]. In
addition, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the first three elements of
their breach of contract counterclaim: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) performance by
the party claiming breach; and (3) failure to perform by the other party. Finally, the
defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the first two elements of the trademark
claims asserted as counterclaims two and three: (1) that Dish Network, LLC and
affiliates own a protectable trademark, DISHNET; and (2) that Dish Network, LLC and
affiliates have used and are using that mark in connection with goods or services. The
balance of the motion for summary judgment of the defendants must be denied. Finally,
the motion for summary judgment of the plaintiffs must be denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and permanent
Injunction [#104, restricted filing #97] filed July 31, 2014, is DENIED;
2. That the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#101, restricted filing
#100] filed July 31, 2014, is GRANTED in part as follows:
(A) as to each of the claims of the plaintiffs, as alleged in the complaint
[#3];
(B) as to the first three elements of the breach of contract counterclaim of
the defendants: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) performance by the
party claiming breach; and (3) failure to perform by the other party; and
(C) as to the first two elements of the trademark claims asserted as
counterclaims two and three: (1) that Dish Network, LLC and affiliates own
a protectable trademark, DISHNET; and (2) that Dish Network, LLC and
affiliates have used and are using that mark in connection with goods or
services; and

14

3. That otherwise, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#101,
restricted filing #100] filed July 31, 2014, is DENIED.
Dated October 20, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

15