Badger Daylighting LTD et al v. Badger Excavating, Inc.
ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 21 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 6/21/2017. (APP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BADGER DAYLIGHTING LTD,
BADGER EXCAVATING, INC.,
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendation on May 31, 201 7, recommending denial of Plaintiff Badger
Daylighting Ltd. 's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff failed to timely object to the
Findings and Recommendation, and so waived its right to de novo review of the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C). This Court reviews for clear error those
findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left
with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United
States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Because the
parties are familiar with the facts of this case, they will not be repeated here.
Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation, the Court finds no
clear error in Judge Lynch's conclusion that Plaintiffs motion should be denied.
As discussed by Judge Lynch, despite the fact that Defendant did not register its
BADGER marks, subject matter jurisdiction is proper because Defendant's
counterclaims are permitted under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
l 125(a). S. California Darts Ass 'n v. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921, 926 (9th Cir. 2014)
(even though plaintiff failed to register contested marks, subject matter jurisdiction
is proper because section 43(a) "protects against infringement of unregistered
marks ... as well as registered marks"). Further, Defendant has alleged sufficient
facts to establish a claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition under
section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Accordingly, there being no clear error in Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 34) are ADOPTED
IN FULL; and
(2) Plaintiff Badger Daylighting's Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Counterclaim (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
\~day of June, 2017.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?