Trademark Law Briefs

Gallup, Inc. v. Business Research Bureau (PVT.) Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12154 (N.D. Cal., 2010)

Defendant runs a polling business in Pakistan under the name Gallup Pakistan, and is a an affiliate of Gallup International Association.  Plaintiff does polling in the United States, and is a former member of Gallup International Association.  Defendant alleged that Plaintiff is currently involved in trademark disputes with mayn GIA affiliates (noted as an aside in the case).  Defendant posts his polls online in English.  As a result, some polls have been picked up by American publications.  The court held that these extraterritorial actions do not give rise to jurisdiction under a Timberlane analysis. 

“Indeed, plaintiff essentially asks the Court to hold that mere participation in an international teleconference or news program broadcast to the United States (or available for viewing in the United States via the Internet) is sufficient to subject the holder of a presumably valid foreign trademark to infringement liability under the Lanham Act. The principles of comity and fairness weigh strongly against this argument.” (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12154 at p. 27.)

Rare Breed Distilling v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal., 2010)

Plaintiff and Defendant both produce bourbon-based honey liqueurs that form the basis of a trademark infringement suit.  Although both companies are headquartered out of Kentucky, Plaintiff’s IP issues are handled by a distributor based out of San Francisco.  As a result, Plaintiff brought suit in the Northern District of California.  Defendant requested transfer of venue under 28 USC 1404(a).  The court declined to transfer because, on balance, the inconvenience to witnesses (etc.) did not outweight Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 v. Courage Campaign, 2010 U.S. Dist. 10045 (E.D. Cal., 2010)

Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction based on trademark infringement.  The court denied the injunction, holding that Plaintiff was “unlikely to overcome the conclusion that defendant’s use of the mark is protected under the first amendment, in that the use is relevant to an expressive parody and the use is not explicitly misleading.” (more…)

Kirby Morgan Dive Systems v. Hydrospace Ltd. et al, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9657 (C.D. Cal., 2010)

Plaintiff entered into a distribution agreement with Defendant wherein defendant would promote, market, and sell Plaintiff’s products in the Brittish Isles and Defendant would not participate in the manufacturing of any competitive products.  The agreement included an arbitration clause governed by the American Arbitration Association and California law.  (more…)

Summit Entertainment, LLC v. Beckett Media, LLC, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 7833 (

Plaintiff, holder of copyright and trademark rights related to the motion picture Twilight, sued defendant, publisher of a Twilight Fanzine, for infringement.  The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (more…)