Go-Video, Inc. v. Matshushita Electrical Industrial Co.

14 Citing briefs

  1. That S it Nutrition, Llc v. General Mills, Inc. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint

    Filed July 21, 2016

    Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. See In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation, 11 F.3d at 1466–67 (affirming dismissal Case 2:16-cv-02871-SVW-GJS Document 13 Filed 07/21/16 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -14- Defendants’ Notice and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint of trademark infringement claim on motion to dismiss based on classic fair use defense). 4.

  2. Christopher Gordon v. Drape Creative Inc et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12

    Filed December 4, 2015

    v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 1991 WL 425379, at *13 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 1991) aff'd 11 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1993). Moreover, where, as is the case here, a defendant does not use the alleged mark as a source-identifier and in fact identifies itself as the source of the goods, the mark is deemed not to have been used in bad faith or for purposes of capitalizing on Plaintiff’s good will.

  3. Capcom Co. LTD. et al v. The MKR Group, Inc.

    Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion tp Dismiss Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint re

    Filed August 13, 2008

    MKR’s claim premised on the disclaimer should be dismissed. In re Dual Deck, 11 F.3d 1460, 1466-67. 3.

  4. HDMI Licensing, LLC v. TomTop Group, LTD. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 38

    Filed December 2, 2016

    See Complaint, ¶¶ 17-20, 27, 45-49. Case 2:16-cv-06923-JFW-AGR Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 HDMI Licensing, LLC v. TomTop Group, Ltd., et al.: Opposition to MTD In reliance, almost exclusively, on In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Lit., 11 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1993), where the court held that marking a connection on defendant’s receiver “VCR 2” was fair use and not an infringement of the mark “VCR-2” (for a particular brand of duel-bay video cassette recorders), because the mark merely described the place to connect a second VCR product and was not a reference to the plaintiff’s VCR-2 product, Defendants argue: It is simply not possible to have an input/output connector jack that is compatible with the physical configuration of an HDMI connector and to inform the consumers of that fact without calling it an HDMI connector. Motion to Dismiss, pg.

  5. Christopher Gordon v. Drape Creative Inc et al

    OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER GORDON TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12

    Filed January 15, 2016

    The scope of 23 24 Because Defendants do not use the HBDGS Mark to describe an attribute of their greeting cards, Defendants’ authorities are inapposite. See In re Dual—Deck 25 Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 11 F.3d 1460, 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1993) 26 (defendant used “VCR—2” mark to describe its own products to which a second VCR could be attached); Bell v Harley Davidson Motor Co., 539 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1258 — (S.D. Cal. 2008) (defendant used “Ride Hard” mark to describe its motorcycle); 28 Naked Cowboy v. CBS, 844 F.Supp.2d 510, 515-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (defendant used “Naked Cowboy” mark in title of video to describe its topic).

  6. OKO International Co. v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed July 7, 2014

    2 2 In fact, even the cases cited by Sony in support of this assertion either do not support this proposition or are readily distinguishable from the present case based on their facts. For example, the sole Ninth Circuit decision relied upon by Sony to support this argument, In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 11 F.3d 1460, 1466-67 (9th Cir. 1993), is inapposite because it was based on a theory of classic fair use, not nominative fair use. See Case3:14-cv-01542-CRB Document26 Filed07/07/14 Page11 of 18 Points And Authorities In Oppos.

  7. OKO International Co. v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Point and Authorities

    Filed June 3, 2014

    Indeed, courts regularly dismiss trademark infringement claims under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of nominative fair use. See In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., Case3:14-cv-01542-CRB Document15 Filed06/03/14 Page9 of 15 - 6 - 8139397-v8 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; MPA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P S P E A R T O W E R , 4 0 T H F L O O R , O N E M A R K E T P L A Z A 1 M A R K E T S T R E E T , S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 0 5 4 1 5 -6 5 3 -3 7 5 0 11 F.3d 1460, 1466-67 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal of trademark infringement claim based on fair use defense); Stevo Design, 968 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (“Plaintiffs’ failure to allege a trademark use beyond nominative fair use is fatal to all their trademark claims.”); Arch Ins. Co. v. Allegiant Prof’l Bus.

  8. Retrophin, Inc. v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc

    REPLY in support MOTION to Dismiss Case with Prejudice 21

    Filed April 25, 2014

    Retrophin’s own cases explain that a desire to compete without sufficient “indicia of ultimate success” cannot support standing. In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 11 F.3d 1460, 1466 (9th Cir. 1993). Not surprisingly, the ANDA cases Retrophin cites are distinguishable.1 Put simply, when, as here, the plaintiff’s injury-in-fact depends on FDA approval, no actual or threatened injury exists unless such approval is likely.2 Implicitly acknowledging that it must allege probable FDA approval of Synacthen for Acthar’s indications, Retrophin asks this Court to excuse its pleading failure because “it is easy to infer that allegation from the facts in the Complaint” (Op. 14).

  9. Emeco Industries, Inc. v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed November 16, 2012

    Case3:12-cv-05072-MMC Document26 Filed11/16/12 Page26 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CASE NO. 3:12-CV-5072 MMC 20 sf-3216486 “fair use as a matter of law.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 11 F.3d 1460, 1467 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff attacks Restoration Hardware’s use of the phrases “Introducing 1940s Naval Chair” and “Introducing 1940S Aluminum Naval Chair” as shown below: (Blavin Decl.

  10. CareFusion Corporation et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Antitrust Claims

    Filed July 28, 2010

    In particular, it is well-recognized that “a prospective participant in a market may suffer antitrust injury if it has taken substantial demonstrable steps to enter an industry and is thwarted in that purpose by antitrust violations.” Go-Video, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 11 F.3d 1460, Case5:10-cv-01111-LHK Document45 Filed07/28/10 Page45 of 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CV10-01111-VRW 36 CareFusion’s Opp to Motion to Dismiss 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). A prospective participant “has standing if he can show a genuine intent to enter the market and a preparedness to do so.”