Harry and David v. ICG America Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER: ICG America and Hickory Farms Joint Motion to Consolidate 47 is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling following resolution of any dispositive motions. The parties shall coordinate discovery. Plaintiff shall by 01/10/2011, submit a letter s etting out issues which could be briefed jointly in dispositive motions, and defendant shall by 01/17/2011, submit a letter with the same information. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Ordered and Signed on 09/07/2010 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

Harry and David v. ICG America Inc.

Doc. 59

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON M E D F O R D DIVISION H A R R Y A N D D A VID, a n O r e g o n corporation, Case N u m b e r CV 08-31 06-CL Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
ICG A M E R I C A , I N C . , a D e l a w a r e c o r p o r a t i o n ( d / b / a "Flying N o o d l e , " " A m a z i n g Clubs," a n d " A m a z i n g c l u b s . c o m " ) , Defendant.

C L A R K E , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: This court heard argument on August 31, 2010, on "ICG America and Hickory Farms' Joint Motion for Consolidation" (#47) o f this case with Harry and David v. Hickory Farms, Inc., CV 09-3011-CL. The motions are opposed by plaintiff Harry and David. Having considered the
parties' briefing and arguments made at the hearing, and for the reasons explained, defendants'

motion to consolidate for all purposes is denied, without prejudice to re-filing; the parties are ordered to coordinate discovery in the two cases; and are ordered to submit to the court by letter p o t e n t i a l i s s u e s w h i c h m a y be j o i n t l y b r i e f e d i n d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s .
Background

The complaint in Harry and David v. ICG America, Inc., C V 08-31 06-CL ("ICGA case")

Order on Joint Motion to Consolidate - 1

Dockets.Justia.com

was filed o n O c t o b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d Harry and D a v i d v. Hickory F a r m s , C V 0 9 - 3 0 1 1 - C L ("Hickory F a r m s case") w a s c o m m e n c e d on February 9, 2009. P l a i n t i f f H a r r y a n d David alleges claims in e a c h case for federal a n d state t r a d e m a r k infringement, federal u n f a i r competition, federal a n d s t a t e t r a d e m a r k d i l u t i o n ; p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s a n a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m for s t a t e u n f a i r c o m p e t i t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t I C G A . P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s in e a c h c a s e t h a t d e f e n d a n t p u r c h a s e d o n e o r m o r e o f p l a i n t i f f s t r a d e m a r k s - " F R U I T - O F - T H E - M O N T H C L U B , " " H A R R Y A N D DAVID," " H A R R Y & D A V I D " ( " H A R R Y A N D D A V I D m a r k s " ) - a s k e y w o r d t r i g g e r s from internet s e a r c h e n g i n e s p r o v i d e r s to d i r e c t p o t e n t i a l c u s t o m e r s to d e f e n d a n t ' s c o m p e t i n g retail website. P l a i n t i f f seeks in e a c h case injunctive relief, treble damages, a n d c o s t s a n d attorneys' fees.

Standards
Federal R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 42(a) provides: " I f a c t i o n s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t involve a c o m m o n question o f l a w o r fact, the court may: ( l ) j o i n for hearing o r trial any o r all matters at i s s u e i n t h e a c t i o n s ; (2) c o n s o l i d a t e t h e a c t i o n s ; o r (3) i s s u e a n y o t h e r o r d e r s t o a v o i d u n n e c e s s a r y cost o r delay." D i s t r i c t o f O r e g o n Local Rule 42-1 pr ovide s that, "Unless otherwise directed by t h e C o u r t , c o n s o l i d a t i o n a n d c a s e m a n a g e m e n t o f c o m p l e x o r r e l a t e d c a s e s a r e g o v e r n e d b y the principles set forth in The M a n u a l / o r Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2 0 0 4 ) ("Manual")." A s to related federal civil cases i n the s a m e court, the Manual states that, " I f t h e cases appear to involve c o m m o n q u e s t i o n s o f l a w o r fact, a n d c o n s o l i d a t i o n m a y t e n d t o r e d u c e c o s t a n d d e l a y , t h e c a s e s may be consolidated" u n d e r Rule 42, although "Cases should n o t b e c o n s o l i d a t e d i f it would r e s u l t in i n c r e a s e d d e l a y a n d o t h e r u n n e c e s s a r y b u r d e n s o n p a r t i e s , s u c h a s h a v i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e in d i s c o v e r y i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i r c a s e s . " M a n u a l § 2 0 . 1 1 . " W h e t h e r c o n s o l i d a t i o n i s p e r m i s s i b l e o r desirable d e p e n d s largely o n t h e a m o u n t o f c o m m o n e v i d e n c e a m o n g t h e cases. U n l e s s c o m m o n

O r d e r o n J o i n t M o t i o n to C o n s o l i d a t e - 2

evidence predominates, c o n s o l i d a t e d trials may confuse the j u r y r a t h e r t h a n p r o m o t e efficiency." Manual § 11.631. The c o u r t h a s broad discretion to consolidate c a se s w i t h i n the same district. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

Discussion
D e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e I C G A c a s e and H i c k o r y F a r m s c a s e a r e p a r a l l e l a c t i o n s involving alleged i n f r i n g e m e n t o f the same H A R R Y A N D D A V I D m a r k s a n d s e e k i n g r e l i e f based on the s a m e theories o f liability for the same c o n d u c t - b i d d i n g o n a t r a d e m a r k e d term as a n internet k e y w o r d o n a s e a r c h engine. D e f e n d a n t s further c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a l l e g e a l m o s t identical a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m , i n c l u d i n g t h e s a m e legal i s s u e o f w h e t h e r p l a i n t i f f s F R U I T OF T H E M O N T H C L U B m a r k s s h o u l d be c a n c e l e d d u e t o g e n e r i c n e s s . T h e y also a s s e r t t h a t e x t e n s i v e fact a n d e x p e r t d i s c o v e r y , i n c l u d i n g p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s e s , o v e r l a p . D e f e n d a n t s m o v e for consolidation o f t h e actions for all further proceedings, i n c l u d i n g trial. P l a i n t i f f opposes consolidation o f the I C G A case and Hickory Farms case, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t e a c h case is deeply tied to specific facts regarding defendant's separate acts o f alleged infringement and the s u r r o u n d i n g c o n t e x t o f d e f e n d a n t ' s b u s i n e s s . I t a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c a s e s s t a n d in d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r a l p o s t u r e s . P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t e f f i c i e n c y m a y be a c h i e v e d i n d i s c o v e r y w i t h o u t c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e c a s e s f o r all p u r p o s e s . The court is p e r s u a d e d b y p l a i n t i f f s arguments. A l t h o u g h there are s o m e facts and legal issues c o m m o n to b o t h cases, such as the H A R R Y A N D D A V I D m a r k s at issue and the c o m m o n c o u n t e r c l a i m s b y d e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e p h r a s e s " o f t h e m o n t h " a n d / o r " o f t h e m o n t h c l u b " are c o m m o n l y u s e d g e n e r i c p h r a s e s s u c h t h a t p l a i n t i f f s m a r k s s h o u l d b e c a n c e l e d , d e f e n d a n t s have not shown t h a t c o m m o n facts p r e d o m i n a t e o v e r facts w h i c h are separate a n d unique to each case.

Order o n J o i n t M o t i o n to C o n s o l i d a t e - 3

These unique facts include: the alleged infringing conduct by each defendant, including each d e f e n d a n t ' s intent; t h e n a t u r e o f e a c h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o m p a n y o r c o m p a n i e s , l i n c l u d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o d u c t s , d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m a n d m a r k e t i n g c h a n n e l s , and c u s t o m e r s ; d e f e n d a n t ' s s a l e s and profits; and any potential damages suffered by plaintiff and other relief. In making its prima facie case o f alleged infringement by defendant, plaintiff will have the burden o f proving that defendant's use o f its marks creates a likelihood o f confusion. See Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 1999); Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F .3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007). In the Ninth Circuit, courts consider the following relevant, but non-exclusive factors set out in the Sleekcraft t e s f with respect to the likelihood o f confusion element: 1. strength o f the mark; 2. proximity o f the goods; 3. similarity o f the marks; 4. evidence o f actual confusion; 5. marketing channels used; 6. type o f goods and the degree o f care likely to be exercised by the purchaser; 7. defendant's intent in selecting the mark; and 8. likelihood o f expansion o f the product lines. "[T]he relative importance o f each individual factor will be case-specific." Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1054. It is clear that evidence as to these factors will be unique to each defendant in each case. On this record, the court finds that there is not commonality o f fact or law to be o f sufficient savings and efficiency to warrant consolidating the ICGA and Hickory Farms cases. The risk o f increased complexity at trial and j u r y confusion, and the prejudice to plaintiff in litigating the cases together outweigh any economies and convenience which might be gained in

Defendant ICGA also does business as "Flying Noodle," "Amazing Clubs," and "Amazingclubs.com." (ICGA case Compi. ~ 5, Answer ~ 5.)
2 AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F .2d 341, 348-49 ( 9 t h Cir. 1979), abrogated o n another ground by MatteI, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9 th Cir. 2003).

Order on Joint Motion to Consolidate - 4

discovery or in briefing dispositive motions. Accordingly, defendants' motion to consolidate for all purposes is denied. This denial is without prejudice to defendants re-filing their motion for consolidation for trial purposes following resolution o f any dispositive motions, see infra. T h e c o u r t finds, h o w e v e r , t h a t s o m e e f f i c i e n c i e s c a n b e g a i n e d b y p u r s u i n g s o m e discovery jointly. The parties have, for example, indicated that it might be efficient to depose Harry and David's witnesses jointly in one proceeding. The same may be true as to discovery related to plaintiff's H A R R Y AND DAVID marks. There may be expert depositions that could be jointly held in the cases. There will, on the other hand, be discovery that is better pursued separately for each case. Therefore, the parties shall coordinate in good faith to determine d i s c o v e r y w h i c h m a y b e e f f i c i e n t l y and e c o n o m i c a l l y p u r s u e d j o i n t l y . T h e c o u r t does n o t believe that a formal order consolidating discovery for all purposes is appropriate. In addition, by January 10, 2011, plaintiff shall submit a letter to the court setting out w h a t issue o r i s s u e s p o t e n t i a l l y c o u l d b e b r i e f e d j o i n t l y i n d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s . O n o r b e f o r e January 17, 2011, defendants shall submit letters to the court with the same information. IT IS SO ORDERED. D A T E D this _~_day o f S e p t e m b e r , 2 0 1 0 .
/-'.~/

..~

MARK D. CLARKE U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e

Order on Joint Motion to Consolidate - 5