Vosk International Co. v. Zao Gruppa Predpriyatij Ost et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting Aqua-Life's 61 Motion for Summary Judgment; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

VOSK INTERNATIONAL CO.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
ZAO GRUPPA PREDPRIYATIJ OST
AND ZAO OST AQUA,

Case No. C11-1488RSL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on a “Motion for Summary Judgment ” filed

14

by Intervenor-Defendant Ltd. “Aqua-Life” (“Aqua Life”) (Dkt. # 61). Plaintiff Vosk

15

International Co. (“Vosk”) appeals the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark

16

Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) refusal to grant Vosk’s applications to register

17

three marks. The TTAB sustained Defendants Zao Gruppa Predpriyatij Ost’s and Zao

18

Ost Aqua’s (collectively “Zao”) oppositions to the applications based on their

19

allegations of prior use and their contention that use of Vosk’s marks on the identified

20

goods were likely to cause confusion.

21
22
23

In addition to seeking review of the TTAB’s decision, Vosk asserts claims of
false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under the
Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). Aqua-Life, the successor-in-interest to
Zao’s business and the owner of the three marks at issue, intervened and asserts various

24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

trademark and unfair competition claims. Aqua-Life now seeks summary judgment

2

affirming the TTAB’s decision and dismissing Vosk’s additional claims.

3
4
5

Having considered the parties’ memoranda, supporting documents, the arguments
made during the hearing on September 27, 2013, and the remainder of the record, the
Court finds as follows:
I. BACKGROUND

6
7

In March 2004, Zao, a now dissolved Russian beverage manufacturing and
distribution company, and Vosk, a Washington beverage importer and distributor,

8
entered into a contract, the terms of which provided that Zao would ship its beverages,
9
10

DUCHESSE, ESTRAGON, and EXTRA CIDER with labels shown below, to Vosk and
Vosk would import Zao’s products and sell them in the United States. Dkt. # 66 at 3;

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Dkt. # 1-2 at 3.
The parties’ original agreement was revised and superseded by another
agreement in September 2004. Dkt. # 66 at 3; Dkt. # 1-2 at 3. By spring 2005, the
parties’ relationship had soured and they terminated the contract. Dkt. # 1-2 at 37.

22
In September 2004, Vosk filed applications to register the following three marks:
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dkt. # 66-4 at 2-3; Dkt. # 66-5 at 2-3; Dkt. # 66-6 at 2-3; Dkt. # 1-2 at 2. Zao opposed
9
10

the registration of Vosk’s marks based on a likelihood of confusion. Dkt. # 1-2 at 2. In
March 2005, Zao filed trademark applications to register its marks. Id. at 37-38.

11

In 2010, while Vosk’s applications were pending before the TTAB,1 Zao

12

dissolved and assigned its common law rights to the marks to its successor-in-interest,

13

Aqua-Life. Dkt. # 66-11 at 6; Dkt. # 62-7 at 1-3. The TTAB sustained Zao’s

14

oppositions and refused to register Vosk’s marks in August 2011. Dkt. # 1-2. Nearly

15

two years later, Aqua-Life recorded the assignment of trademarks from Zao with the

16

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Dkt. # 62-7 at 1-2.
II. DISCUSSION

17
18
19
20
21

A. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, the records show that “there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to summary

22
judgment if the non-moving party fails to designate, by affidavits, depositions, answers
23
24

1

Zao’s applications were conditionally denied due to Vosk’s earlier applications for
registration. Dkt. # 1-2 at 37.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

1

to interrogatories, or admissions on file, “specific facts showing that there is a genuine

2

issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

3
4
5
6
7

All reasonable inferences supported by the evidence are to be drawn in favor of
the nonmoving party. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061
(9th Cir. 2002). “[I]f a rational trier of fact might resolve the issues in favor of the
nonmoving party, summary judgment must be denied.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific
Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). “The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party’s position is not sufficient.”

8
Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). “[S]ummary
9
10
11
12

judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from
which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor.” Id.
B. Standard of Review
Under the Lanham Act, an applicant for registration of a mark that is dissatisfied

13

with a final decision by the TTAB may seek review of that decision by the Federal

14

Circuit on a closed record of the TTAB proceedings, 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a)(4), or it may

15

seek review by the district court with an opportunity to present additional evidence and

16

raise additional claims, 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(1). In the latter situation, the district court

17

acts as an appellate reviewer of the facts determined by the TTAB and a fact-finder

18

based on new evidence introduced. 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks

19
20
21

and Unfair Competition § 21:20 (4th ed.).
In Dickinson v. Zurko, the Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure
Act’s standards governing judicial review applies to the Federal Circuit’s review of
findings of fact by the PTO. 527 U.S. 150, 165 (1999). Applying Zurko, the Federal

22
Circuit determined that the TTAB’s findings of fact “will be upheld unless they are
23

unsupported by substantial evidence.” On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229

24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

1

F.3d 1080, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2000). This standard of review is applied regardless of

2

whether review is sought in the Federal Circuit or in the district court. CAE, Inc. v.

3

Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 675 n.9 (7th Cir. 2001); 3 McCarthy § 21:22.50.

4
5
6
7

To apply the substantial evidence standard, the Court must ask “whether a
reasonable person might find that the evidentiary record supports the agency’s
conclusion.” On-Line Careline, Inc., 229 F.3d at 1085. “Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed.

8
Cir. 2000). When this standard of review is applied in the context of a motion for
9
10
11

summary judgment, the district court applies a deferential standard of review to the
TTAB’s findings and views new evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Phoenix Int’l Software, Inc., 653 F.3d

12

448, 452 (7th Cir. 2011). Thus, Vosk, as the non-moving party, must identify

13

compelling facts that were not brought to the TTAB’s attention that are enough when

14

viewed in the light most favorable to defeat summary judgment. Id.

15

Unlike the TTAB’s findings of fact, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

16

In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

17

C. Vosk’s Motions to Strike

18
19
20
21

As a preliminary matter, Vosk asks the Court to strike the declaration of Tatiana
Aparshina and the exhibits attached, dkt. # 65 at 25, as well as the declaration of Melvin
Simburg and exhibits, dkt. # 75 at 1. Vosk contends that Aqua-Life did not disclose Ms.
Aparshina as a potential witness and therefore, the Court should strike her declaration
under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. # 65 at 25-26. Aqua-Life

22
does not dispute that it did not disclose Ms. Aparshina as a witness, but instead argues
23

that her declaration summarizes documents previously introduced during the TTAB

24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5

1

proceedings and it does not have the burden of proof to establish facts contrary to the

2

TTAB’s findings. Dkt. # 71 at 14.

3
4
5
6
7

The Court DENIES the motion to strike Ms. Aparshina’s declaration as
essentially moot because the Court does not rely on her declaration for its ruling.
Rather, the Court relies entirely on the undisputed facts and the unchallenged findings of
fact by the TTAB. Vosk’s arguments regarding the documents attached to Ms.
Aparshina’s declaration are equally unavailing. At summary judgment stage, “a party
does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at

8
trial.” Block v. City of L.A., 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001). A party need only
9
10
11
12

present evidence that can “be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The Court finds that the exhibits attached to Ms. Aparshina’s
declaration could be properly authenticated at trial and therefore, has considered it.
The Court also DENIES the motion to strike Mr. Simburg’s declaration and the

13

exhibits attached as moot for the same reason it denies Vosk’s motion to strike Ms.

14

Aparshina’s declaration. The Court does not rely on this declaration or the exhibits

15

attached to it in reaching its decision.2

16

D. Findings of the TTAB

17
18
19
20
21

During the TTAB proceedings, Zao presented evidence consisting of business
records and testimony that it exported beverages with its marks to the United States as
early as 2001. Dkt. # 2-1 at 35. Edward Tkach, President of B & B International
Connections, Inc., testified that he and his company began importing these products
with the marks in 2001 and they continued importing Zao’s products until 2004. Id. at
36. Then, in March 2004, Zao and Vosk entered into an agreement, which was later

22
modified and superseded by another agreement in September 2004, the terms of which
23
24

2

The Court also has not considered the late submissions by Aqua-Life, filed the day
before the hearing on this motion. Dkt. # 92, 93.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6

1

provided that Vosk would purchase Zao’s products and re-sell them in the United Sates.

2

Id. at 36. During the course of their relationship, Vosk worked with Zao to alter the

3

labels to include the English translations and to make a few other minor alterations to

4

comply with U.S. law. Id. at 36-37. As the TTAB noted, “these are the types of

5
6
7

labeling changes one might expect an importer or distributor to recommend to its foreign
manufacturer based on its better understanding the law and custom of the domestic
market.” Id. at 37 n.41. The parties ceased working together in spring 2005. Id.
E. TTAB’s Conclusions of Law3

8
Based on the findings set forth above, the TTAB concluded that Zao “clearly
9
10
11

established [its] priority of use of the marks in connection with the involved goods.” Id.
at 45. This Court agrees. Affording the proper deference to the TTAB’s factual
findings, the Court finds that the evidence shows that Zao had a proprietary interest in

12

the subject marks several years before Vosk filed its intent to use applications in

13

September 2004. Furthermore, Vosk does not dispute that Zao distributed its products

14

containing the relevant marks in the United States before Vosk filed its intent to use

15

applications. Rather, as explained below, Vosk argues that Zao’s distribution was

16

unlawful, thereby invalidating Zao’s priority date.

17

As before the TTAB, there does not appear to be any dispute that the parties’

18

marks present a likelihood of confusion. See Dkt. # 2-1 at 46; Dkt. # 61; Dkt. # 65.

19
20
21
22
23
24

Nonetheless, analyzing the factors established in AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599
F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979), (1) strength of the mark; (2) proximity or relatedness
3

Despite Vosk’s request to do so, the Court may not review the TTAB’s denial of
Vosk’s motion for summary judgment. “An order denying a motion for summary
judgment is interlocutory, non-final, and non-appealable.” Parker Bros. v. Tuxedo
Monopoly, Inc., 757 F.2d 254, 255 (Fed. Cir. 1985); accord Tequila Centinela, S.A. de
C.V. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 517 F.Supp.2d 1, 7-8 (D.D.C. 2007). That rule is applicable
to decisions by the TTAB. Parker Bros., 757 F.2d at 255. Therefore, the Court does not
consider Vosk’s claims on review that the TTAB erred in denying its motion for
summary judgment.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7

1

of the goods or services; (3) similarity of sight, sound and meaning; (4) evidence of

2

actual confusion; (5) marketing channels; (6) type of goods and purchaser care; (7)

3

intent; and (8) likelihood of expansion in product lines, the Court affirms the TTAB’s

4

finding of a likelihood of confusion. See Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast

5
6
7

Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Some factors are much more
important than others, and the relative importance of each individual factor will be case
specific . . . it is often possible to reach a conclusion with respect to likelihood of
confusion after considering only a subset of factors.”).

8
The Court finds that the subject marks are essentially identical. They are
9
10
11

comprised of the same words, written in the same font, surrounded by virtually the same
shapes in the same design. The similarity factor therefore weighs heavily in favor of a
finding of likelihood of confusion. Id. at 1054 (“The similarity of the marks will always

12

be an important factor.”). In addition, both Aqua-Life and Zao’s marks are used to label

13

the same type of non-alcoholic, Russian beverages. See Dkt. # 1-2 at 52-53. Based on

14

the nearly identical nature of the marks and their use for the same products in the same

15

market, the Court concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion. Brookfield, 174

16

F.3d at 1056 (“In light of the virtual identity of marks, if they were used with identical

17

products or services likelihood of confusion would follow as a matter of course.”).

18
19
20
21

Finally, the TTAB considered and rejected Vosk’s argument that Zao could not
establish trademark rights because it did not comply with the Food and Drug
Administration’s (“FDA”) labeling requirements and its Estragon beverage contained an
ingredient prohibit by the FDA. Dkt. # 1-2 at 54- 62. Although Vosk alleged that Zao
violated a variety of FDA requirements before 2004, Vosk did not present any evidence

22
that the FDA or any other authority actually determined there to be a violation before
23

2004. Dkt. # 2-1 at 60-61. Absent any finding by the TTAB that the FDA determined

24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8

1

Zao to be noncompliant before September 2004, the Court affirms the TTAB’s denial of

2

Vosk’s affirmative defense.

3

The Ninth Circuit’s holding in CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Scis. , Inc., 474

4

F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2007) does not alter the Court’s analysis. Unlike the circumstances

5
6
7

present here, in CreAgri, Inc., it was undisputed that the manufacturer’s labels were not
in compliance with U.S. regulations governing labeling requirements regarding the
ingredients of a dietary supplement and therefore, the manufacturer’s use was not lawful
for determining priority of use. 474 F.3d at 630-31. In contrast, Vosk failed to present

8
any evidence that Zao’s use of its marks before September 2004 was in fact unlawful.
9
10
11

Absent such evidence, this Court cannot conclude that the alleged labeling defects were
sufficiently related to the marks to justify revoking Aqua-Life’s common-law rights to
the marks. The Court also affirms the TTAB’s finding that abrogating Zao’s rights, and

12

now Aqua-Life’s rights, to the marks based on unsupported allegations of labeling

13

defects would not reflect the PTO’s longstanding policy favoring proportionate

14

penalties. See Dkt. # 1-2 at 61-62.

15

F. New Evidence and Arguments

16

In this appeal, Vosk presents evidence and arguments not considered by the

17

TTAB. At this stage, the primary inquiry is whether Vosk has presented sufficient

18

evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to Vosk and considered with the

19
20
21

TTAB’s findings of fact, creates a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary
judgment in Aqua-Life’s favor. Phoenix Int’l Software, Inc., 653 F.3d at 452. Vosk
contends that three genuine issues of fact preclude granting Aqua-Life’s motion: (1)
whether Zao’s trademark assignment to Aqua-Life is authentic; (2) whether Zao’s prior

22
use of the marks was lawful; and (3) whether Vosk was Zao’s distributor or the actual
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9

1

owner of the subject marks. Dkt. # 65 at 13-25. The Court addresses each of Vosk’s

2

arguments in turn.

3

1. Zao’s Assignment of Rights to Aqua-Life

4

Vosk argues that Aqua-Life and Zao backdated the trademark assignment to

5
6
7

reflect a date preceding Zao’s dissolution to avoid a finding that the relevant marks had
been abandoned. Dkt. # 62-7 at 13. To support this contention, Vosk relies on the twoyear delay in recording the assignment with the PTO and Zao’s alleged history of
committing forgery by reproducing the signature of Vosk’s owner on four documents.

8
Id. at 13-15. These arguments are not persuasive.
9
10
11

Contrary to Vosk’s suggestion, Aqua-Life was not required to join or seek
substitution in the TTAB proceedings. A TTAB decision is binding on an assignee
regardless of whether there is a formal substitution of the party during the TTAB

12

proceedings. TBMP 512.01; see also Hamilton Burr Publ’g Co. v. E. W. Communc’ns,

13

Inc., 216 U.S.P.Q. 802, 803, n.1 (TTAB 1982) (noting that if the entity opposing to the

14

registration of a mark has transferred its rights to the mark, the assignor may continue

15

the action and the TTAB’s decision will be binding upon the assignee). Furthermore,

16

even if Zao reproduced Mr. Voskanyan’s signatures on drafts of the parties’ contracts

17

without authorization, that fact alone is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact

18

regarding whether the signatures and the date on a separate document are authentic.4

19
20

Vosk has not presented any evidence suggesting that the assignment of rights is not
authentic.

21
22
23
24

4

The Court notes that whether Mr. Voskanyan’s signatures on the contract drafts are
replicas is not a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as neither party
disputes the material terms of the contracts.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10

1

2. Zao’s Alleged Unlawful Prior Use

2

Vosk next contends that Zao’s prior use of the marks was not lawful use in

3

commerce and therefore, Aqua-Life cannot establish priority of use of the marks.

4

Although Vosk presented similar arguments during the TTAB proceeding, dkt. # 1-2 at

5
6
7

54, Vosk has submitted new evidence in this appeal, which requires this Court to review
the evidence de novo and in the light most favorable to Vosk. Phoenix Int’l Software,
Inc., 653 F.3d at 452.
Vosk argues that Zao’s earlier use of the mark associated with one beverage,

8
9
10
11

Estragon, was not lawful because it contained a color additive prohibited by the FDA.5
Vosk relies on the FDA’s 2005 determination that one shipment of Estragon contained
Patent Blue V in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 379e(a). Dkt. # 66-7. Vosk’s new evidence
includes a spreadsheet Vosk received through a records request from the FDA pursuant

12

to the Freedom of Information Act. Dkt. # 66 ¶ 21; Dkt. # 68-1. This spreadsheet states

13

that the FDA found an unspecified color additive in Estragon in 2008 that is considered

14

“unsafe” and prohibited by a federal regulation. Id. at 5. Vosk also relies on expert

15

testimony from Irene Gomez, a former FDA Director of Import Operations for Los

16

Angeles, California. Dkt. # 68. Viewing the new evidence in the light most favorable to

17

Vosk, the Court finds that Vosk fails to present a genuine issue of material fact

18

regarding the legality of Zao’s prior use of the marks.

19
20
21

The reliability of expert testimony is judged not on the substance of the opinions
offered, but on the methods employed in developing those opinions. Daubert v. Merrill
Dow. Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-95 (1993). In general, the expert’s opinion must
be based on principles, techniques, or theories that are generally accepted in his or her

22
23
24

5

There is no allegation or evidence that Zao’s two other products, Duchesse, and Extra
Cider, contained any unlawful ingredient or that their importation was questioned by a federal
authority.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11

1

profession and must reflect something more than subjective belief and/or unsupported

2

speculation. Id. at 590. The testimony must also be “helpful,” such that a valid

3

connection between the opinion offered and the issues of the case exists. Id. at 591-92.

4

Based on the FDA’s determination that Patent Blue V was present in one

5
6
7

shipment of Estragon in 2005 and the FDA’s finding that an unsafe color additive was
present in Estragon 2008, Ms. Gomez opines that all of Zao’s shipments of Estragon
through 2008 contained Patent Blue V. Dkt. # 68 ¶ 9. This opinion is based on a
another opinion that “manufacturers typically do not formulate products that initially

8
comply with FDA regulations and then reformulate such products in a way that violates
9
10
11

such regulations.” Id. Although Ms. Gomez has more than thirty years of experience in
FDA import operations and procedures, she lacks sufficient knowledge or experience to
qualify as an expert in the proper subject matter. Ms. Gomez is not and does not

12

proclaim to be an expert in the field of beverage manufacturing and her opinions are

13

beyond the scope of her FDA import expertise.

14

Additionally, Ms. Gomez’s opinion is not the product of reliable principles or

15

methods. It is not entirely clear what, if anything, Ms. Gomez relied on to reach her

16

conclusion. Even assuming that the color additive found in Estragon in 2008 was in fact

17

Patent Blue V, there is nothing in the record or her opinion that suggests its presence in

18

Estragon before 2005. There is simply too large an analytical gap between the facts and

19
20
21

her conclusion that all shipments of Estragon before 2005 contained Patent Blue V.
With respect to Zao’s alleged failure to comply with FDA labeling requirements
in 2008, Ms. Gomez’s opinion regarding Zao’s use of Russian writing on its labels is not
helpful to the trier of fact as required under Daubert. Ms. Gomez opines generally that

22
if Zao’s imported beverages contained labels written in Russian those beverages did not
23

lawfully enter U.S. commerce. Dkt. # 68 ¶ 11. Ms. Gomez relies on the same FDA

24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 12

1

spreadsheet discussed earlier, which also indicates that in 2008, Zao attempted to import

2

beverages containing labels that did not comply with certain FDA regulations, including

3

one regulation requiring that labels be written in English. Id. ¶ 7; Dkt. # 68-1. Her

4

conclusion that labels written in Russian violate FDA regulations provides no additional

5
6
7

insight beyond the document on which she relies. Furthermore, neither Ms. Gomez’s
opinion nor the FDA spreadsheet addresses the relevant time period, before September
2004. Id. At best, this evidence indicates that Zao’s labels were not compliant long
after Vosk’s priority date. Vosk therefore fails to present sufficient admissible evidence

8
to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Zao’s prior use of the marks
9
10
11

in commerce was lawful.6
3. Vosk’s Business Relationship with Zao
Finally, Vosk contends that whether Vosk was Zao’s “distributor” in 2004 and

12

early 2005 is an issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Dkt. # 65 at 23.

13

However, the precise nature of Vosk’s relationship with Zao is not material. Vosk does

14

not dispute that Zao, through another distributer, imported and sold the products with its

15

marks before 2004. Therefore, whether Vosk acted as Zao’s distributor and agent or as

16

a buyer and subsequent seller and owner of the marks in 2004 and 2005 is irrelevant to

17

the determination of priority. Vosk does not contend that the marks Zao used before

18

2004 belonged to Vosk and thus, the dispute regarding ownership of the marks on the

19
20
21

products sold as a result of the parties’ contracts is not relevant. The Court therefore
GRANTS Aqua-Life’s motion for summary judgment and AFFIRMS the decision of the
TTAB.

22
23
24

6

Despite Vosk’s request to strike Ms. Aparshina’s declaration, dkt. # 65 at 25, Vosk
relies on Ms. Aparshina’s statements as admissions that Zao’s use of the marks was unlawful
before 2004, dkt. # 65 at 23. Vosk cannot have it both ways. As explained more fully above,
the Court has not considered Ms. Aparshina’s declaration in reaching its decision.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 13

1
2

G. False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition
In its motion, Aqua-Life challenges Vosk’s false designation of origin and unfair

3

competition claims. Aqua-Life contends that as the senior user of the three marks at

4

issue, it did not infringe and is not currently infringing on Vosk’s rights under the

5
6
7

Lanham Act and it has not violated the CPA. Dkt. # 61 at 10-11. Vosk offers nothing in
response. In fact, Vosk’s response does not even mention these claims. Nonetheless,
the Court has conducted its own review of these claims and finds that these claims
cannot survive summary judgment in light of its earlier ruling affirming the TTAB’s

8
decision. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Aqua-Life’s motion with respect to Vosk’s
9
10
11

false designation of origin and unfair competition claims.
H. Aqua-Life’s Counterclaims.
During oral argument, Aqua-Life informed the Court that should this Court grant

12

its motion for summary judgment it would dismiss its counterclaims against Vosk.

13

Because the Court has granted Aqua-Life’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety,

14

Aqua-Life’s counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED.

15
16

III. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Aqua-Life’s motion for

17

summary judgment (Dkt. # 61). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in

18

favor of Intervenor-Defendant Aqua-Life and against Plaintiff Vosk.

19
20

DATED this 9th day of October, 2013.

21

A

22

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 14