Edge Games,Inc.v.ElectronicArtsInc., United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 preliminary injunctionis balance ofequitiestipsinitsfavor,orthataninjunction isinthepublicinterest,motion fora the merits, thatitislikelytosuffer irreparable harm intheabsenceof preliminary relief, thatthe this disputeunfoldsincourt.Becauseplaintiffhas failedtoestablishthatitislikelysucceedon preliminarily enjoindefendantElectronicArts Games, Inc.—aso-called“small video-gaming company” basedinPasadena— moves to and its“revolutionary”first-person,action-advent corporation, ELECTRONIC ARTS,INC.,aDelaware v. corporation, EDGE GAMES,INC.,aCalifornia In thistrademark infringement actioninvol Defendant. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT D ENIED . INTRODUCTION / from usingthe“MIRROR’S EDGE”mark while ure videogame “Mirror’sEdge,”plaintiffEdge ving video-gaming giantElectronicArts,Inc. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER DENYINGMOTIONFOR No. C10-02614WHA Dockets.Justia.com Doc. 67 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “Battlepods,” and“Racers”( one ormore oftheassertedmarks include“BobbyBearing,”“Raffles,”“Mythora,” “Pengu,” 17). Examples ofrecentvideo-game products several dozenvideogames from themid-1990s through2010bearingtheassertedmarks ( alleged trademark holderherein—in2005( supposed predecessor-in-interesttoEdgeGames). HethenincorporatedEdgeGames —the moved toLosAngelesin1990,hereincorporatedSoftekasEdgeInteractiveMedia(another ( marketing andsalesbackin1984throughaLondon-basedvideo-game company calledSoftek Dr. Langdell’sdeclaration,hebeganusingthe“EDGE”mark inconnectionwithvideo-game shareholder, Dr.Tim Langdell,wouldhaveajurybelieve(LangdellDecl.¶¶1–3).Accordingto businesses” ontheplanet—atleast,that’swhatitsfounder,chiefexecutiveofficer,andsole which aregames thatcanbeplayedoncertainmobile phones( video game” products,aswellover45,000unitsofBobbyBearing,Pengu,andBattlePods, purportedly soldover11,000unitsofRaffles,Mythora,andRacers,whichare“packagedPC Xbox 360,theNintendoWii, andtheApple iPhoneandiPad( releases arecurrentlybeingdevelopedforgaming consolesandplatforms includingMicrosoft’s and/or licensesgames formajor gaming consolessuchastheSonyPlayStation3,and thatvarious and mobile-phone videogames, Dr.Langdellalsoclaims thatEdgeGames develops,publishes, video-gaming industry. declaration, EdgeGames is a legitimate “small video-gaming company” thatisactiveinthe as Amazon.com, BestBuy,andTarget( be soldthroughthesame retailersthattheaccusedproductswere(andarestillbeing)sold,such id. at¶2).Softekissupposedlyapredecessor-in-interesttoEdgeGames. AfterDr.Langdell Plaintiff EdgeGames anditspredecessors Edge Games, Inc.is“oneoftheoldestsurvivingvideogame development andpublishing .P 1. According toDr.Langdell,these“upcoming” releasesfrom EdgeGames willsupposedly LAINTIFF E DGE id. at¶14,Exhs.K–T).Between2003and2009,EdgeGames G AMES id. , STATEMENT

I at¶20).Insum, baseduponDr.Langdell’s NC id. . purportedly marketed byEdgeGames andbearing at¶3). 2 supposedly developed,distributed,andsold id. id. at¶15). at¶¶15–16).InadditiontoPC id. at¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 instant trademark dispute( ten video-game development studios—the“Mirror’s Edge”franchisestandsattheheartof by EADigitalIllusionsCEAB(or“EADICE”forshort)inStockholm, Sweden—oneofEA’s units foratleast31ofitsactivevideo-game franchises(HershbergerDecl.¶2). development studiosspanningtheglobe.In2009alone,EAhadsalesexceedingonemillion grown tobecome aninternational,publiclytradedcorporationwithmore thantenvideo-game as forPCs,Macs,andvariousmobile-gaming devices.Sinceitsformation in1982,EAhas consoles includingMicrosoft’sXbox360,theSony that develops,publishes,anddistributesvideogames andrelatedsoftwareformodern gaming other items withinthecitywhile evadinggovernme the game describes her,a“runner”)taskedwithcovertlydelivering information, messages, and and explorethisworldthrough theeyesofacharacternamed “Faith,”whoisamessenger (or,as streets, whosepopulationhasbeenmarginalized byatotalitarianregime. Playersinteractwith development, whichspannedthreeyearsandinvolvedateam ofover60individuals ( 2008 (HershbergerDecl.¶5).Tensofmillions ofdollarswereinvestedbyEAinthegame’s throughout thegaming industryandbecame oneofthemost anticipated video-game releasesof marketing director,LincolnHershberger,“Mi “Mirror’s Edge”videogame ( by apressreleaseissuedEAonJuly11,2007,officiallyannouncingthedevelopment ofthe Edge” ( creating a“revolutionarynewtakeonthefirst-person actionadventuregame” entitled“Mirror’s game magazine publishedbyFuturePublishing—thatitsEADICEdevelopment studiowas .T 3. “Mirror’s Edge”isoneofEA’smodestly successfulvideo-game franchises.Developed Electronic Arts—orEAforshortisaleading“interactiveentertainment” company The game itselfissetinacityofgleaming skyscraperswithreflectivesurfaces andempty In July2007,EAannouncedin“EdgeMagazine”—aleadingprintandonlinevideo- D 2. id. at¶4).Theannouncement wasacoverstoryinthemagazine, anditwasaccompanied HE EFENDANT “M IRROR id. E at¶3). LECTRONIC id. ’ S atExh.A;BinnsDecl.¶3,F).AccordingtoEA’ssenior E DGE ”

F RANCHISE A RTS rror’s Edge”waswidelyknownanddiscussed , 3

I NC nt surveillance.Thenetwork ofrooftopsand PlayStation 3,andtheNintendoWii, aswell . id. at¶8). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 version ofthegame remains availablefordownloadonEA’sonlinestore( the SonyPlayStation3,Microsoft’sXbox360,orPCforthird-partyretailers, ( “Mirror’s Edge”havebeensoldworldwide,includingover750,000unitsinNorthAmerica alone online retailers( government isdubbedthe“Mirror’sEdge”( aerial skywaysthatFaithandother“runners”utilizetomake thesedeliveriesandevadethe was soldas“Mirror’sEdgePureTime TrialsMapPack”( franchise. InFebruary2009,EAreleased“additional downloadablecontext”forthegame, which the video-game industry( Entertainment Expo(or“E3”)inJuly2008.E3iswidelyregardedasthemost important expoin industry events,includingtheGame Developers units havealreadybeen downloaded fortheAppleiPad( Edge 2D.”Itiscurrently availableforpurchasethroughApple’sAppStore, whereover37,000 2–6). Thisside-scrollingversionofthegame —publishedin 2010—wasentitled“Mirror’s 2009 anddevelopedfrom scratchfortheAppleiPad,iPhone,andiPodTouch(Correa Decl.¶¶ and “substantiallyscaleddown”side-scrollingversion ofthegame wasannouncedinDecember sellers ( invested over$9million tomarket “Mirror’s Edge” inNorthAmerica ( series” waspublishedin2008and2009byadivisionofDCComics ( adaptation of“Mirror’sEdge”wasannounced.Thesix-issuecomic “mini- Comic-Con, thelargestcomic-book conventionintheworld,wherealimited-run comic-book sold throughretailchannelsincludingmass merchandisers ( Microsoft’s Xbox360.APCversionfollowedinJanuary2009( id. at¶17).While EAisnolongermanufacturing Due toitsmodest success,additionalproductsweredevelopedforthe“Mirror’sEdge” Prior toitsofficialrelease,“Mirror’sEdge”wasdemonstrated andpublicizedatnumerous In November 2008,“Mirror’sEdge”wasreleasedfortheSonyPlayStation3and e.g. , BestBuy),video-game resellers( e.g. , Amazon.com) ( id. at¶9).AlsoinJuly2008,“Mirror’sEdge”wasshowcased id. at¶14).Sinceitsinitialrelease,overtwomillion unitsof id. e.g. at¶6). 4 Conference inFebruary2008andtheElectronic , GameStop), clubstores( or distributingcopiesof“Mirror’sEdge”for id. id. at¶¶4–6;HershbergerDecl. ¶15). e.g. at¶15).Additionally,aseparate , Walmart, Target),electronics id. at¶13).Thesegames were id. id. at¶10).Intotal,EA at¶11). id. e.g. at¶18). , Costco),and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 development andisslatedforreleaselaterthisyear(HershbergerDecl.¶13). Finally, aMacversionoftheoriginal“Mirror’sEdge”videogame iscurrentlyunder “Mirror’s Edge”appearedinadvertisingandproductpackagingarereproducedbelow( “Edge” inthe“Mirror’sEdge”franchise.Thelogoforandexamples ofhow and Trademark Officeapprovedtheregistrati September 2009and—overaletterof protestfiledbyEdgeGames —theUnitedStatesPatent see inthereproductionabove,logosareclearly visibleonthenormal sizedversion. also placedontheadvertisement (totheleftof“There’sNoLooking Back”).While difficultto clearly seenonthebottom rightoftheXbox 360coverart.ThelogosforEAandDICEwere packaging andadvertising.Inthereproductions above, thelogosforEAandDICEaremost 11–13, Exhs.D–E;ShaferDecl.¶2,A–H): .T 4. As shouldbeobviousbythispoint,trademark battlecentersonEA’suseoftheword The “MIRROR’SEDGE” mark isowned byEADICE.Theapplicationwasfiledin As shown,thelogosforbothEAandDICEwere prominently displayedonthegame’s HE A SSERTED AND A CCUSED on ofthe“MIRROR’SEDGE” mark onJune 22, M 5 ARKS id. at¶¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 connection withcomputer-game software,withcontinuous usepurportedlyextendingbackto mark was originallyregisteredbyanon-partyandissued bytheUSPTOin2003foruse Again, Dr.Langdellassertsthattheplaintiffowns avalidregistrationoverthismark. game accessories,withcontinuoususesupposedlyextendingbackto1986( issued bytheUSPTOin2008foruseconnection video-game magazines, withcontinuoususeallegedlyextendingbackto1995( the USPTOin2009foruseconnectionwithvideo-game software,video-game controllers,and and services,withcontinuoususesupposedlyextendingbackto1984( common-law mark “EDGE”foruseinconnectionwithvideo-game software andrelatedgoods least oneofthetworegistrations—isincontestable.EdgeGames alsoassertsownershipoverthe According toDr.Langdell,the“EDGE”mark wasincontinuoususesince1985,and—forat used inconnectionwithprintedmatter andpublicationsrelatingtovideogames and comic books. Exh. T).Eachmark willbedescribedbrieflybelow. also claims common-law trademark rightsoverthe“EDGE”logo(LangdellDecl.at¶¶4–12, “EDGE OFEXTINCTION,”(5)“CUTTINGEDGE,”and(6)“EDGEGAMERS.”EdgeGames companies. Thesemarks are:(1)“EDGE,”(2)“THEEDGE,” (3)“GAMER’SEDGE,”(4) six federallyregisteredtrademarks thatitsupposedly“usesandselectivelylicenses”toother ¶ 21,Exh.S). 2010, forcomputer andvideogame software,comic books,andonlinevideogames (SchatzDecl. .“EDGEOFEXTINCTION” Ownership ofthe“EDGE OFEXTINCTION”mark is alsoclaimed byEdgeGames. This D. “GAMER’SEDGE” Another registeredmark purportedlyowned byEdgeGames is“GAMER’SEDGE,” C. “THEEDGE” Plaintiff alsosupposedlyownsavalidregistrationforthemark “THE EDGE,”issuedby B. “EDGE Edge Games purportedlyownstwovalidUSPTOregistrationsforthe mark “EDGE”as A. Turning nexttotheassertedmarks inthisaction,EdgeGames isthepurportedownerof ” 6 with video-game softwareandvariousvideo- id . at¶6,Exhs.A–C). id. at ¶8,Exh.E). id. at ¶7,Exh.D). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 game softwareandrelatedwebsites since2001( it assertshasbeenusedcontinuallyasatrademark andservicemark inconnectionwithitsvideo- become incontestable( comic books.Themark hassupposedlybeenincontinuoususeextendingbackto1995and not gaming club,withcontinuoususeextendingbackto2006( “EDGEGAMERS,” issuedbytheUSPTOin2008foruseconnectionwithanonlinecomputer- Langdell, the“EDGEOFEXTINCTION”mark isincontestable( 2000. Themark waslaterassignedtoEdgeGames bytheoriginalregistrant.AccordingtoDr. website publishedbyFuturePublishing,Inc.( published byNISAmerica, andEdgeMagazine, Licensed productssupposedlyinclude“CrossEdge,” avideogame fortheSony PlayStation3 print publicationsandwebsites,comic books,video-game hardware,and computers ( extending thereachofitsassertedmarks well beyondvideo-game softwaretogaming-related purportedly licensedby Edge Games include( relatedtovideogames. Thismark wasissuedbythePTOin1999foruseconnectionwith .P 5. The “EDGE”Logo Finally, EdgeGames claims ownershipoveracommon-law mark, reproducedbelow,that G. “CUTTINGEDGE” The lastregisteredmark purportedlyownedbyEdgeGames —“CUTTINGEDGE”is F. “EDGEGAMERS” Edge Games alsoassertsownershipoverthesupposedlyvalidregisteredmark E. According toDr.Langdell’sdeclaration,plainti The “Edge”lineofhigh-performance gaming computers • LAINTIFF id. sold byVelocityMicro, Inc. ( at¶10,Exh.H,I). ’ S L ICENSING P RACTICES ibid. id. id. at¶22): 7 a leadingvideo-gaming newsmagazine and ; at¶12): id. id. atExhs.U,V).Additionalproducts ff’s licensingpracticeshavebeenprolific, atExh.W). id. at¶11,Exh.J). id. at¶9,Exh.F,G) id. at¶21). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 related tovideogames (RJNExh.K). registered the“EDGE”mark foruseinconnectionwithvariouspapergoods,includingmagazines the frontcoverofourEDGE Games magazine, July2004edition,withtheregistration serial continuing tousethemark incommerce asreflectedinaspecimen describedasa “Colorscanof commerce foratleastfiveyearsfollowingtheJanuary1999registrationdate,and(2)were certified totheUSPTOthat(1)hiscompanies hadmade continuoususe “Combined DeclarationofUseandIncontestab soaked infraud. entire declaration—aresetforth indetailbelow. supporting evidence—whichraiseseriousquestionsregardingtheveracityofDr.Langdell’s Dr. Langdell’sswornrepresentationsmade toboththeUSPTOandCourt.Theseattacks no-holds-barred attackonthevalidityofeachplaintiff’sassertedmarks andthecredibilityof marks canbetrusted.Indeed,EA’soppositionbriefinvestsasubstantialnumber ofpagestoa 1 Defendants’requestforjudicial noticeof .FraudandAbandonmentRegarding“EDGE” According toEA,thetworegistrationsobtainedbyplaintifffor“EDGE”mark were A. A According toEA,almost nothingsetforthaboveregardingEdgeGames anditsasserted 6. The “EdgeGamers” video-gaming website,operatedby • The video-game controllerfortheNintendoWii called • The “CuttingEdge,”“Overtheand“DoubleEdge” • The websiteandvideogame “EdgeofTwilight”by • The onlinecomputer game “Edge ofExtinction”by • LLEGATIONS OF First , inJanuary1999,EdgeInteractiveMedia(apredecessortoGames) EdgeGamers Organization,LLC( at Exh.T). “The Edge,”soldbyDatelDesign&Development Ltd.( (which isownedbyMarvel)( the “Edge”comic-book seriespublishedbyMalibuComics comic-book seriespublishedbyMarvelComics, aswell Fuzzyeyes StupioPty.Ltd.( Cybernet Systems Corp.( F RAUD AND 1 Fiveyearslater,in2004,EdgeInteractiveMedia fileda therecordsanddocuments citedhereinis A ility underSections8&5,”whereinDr.Langdell BANDONMENT 8 id. id. at Exh.Z). id. at Exh.AA). atExh.BB). id. atExh.Y).

of the“EDGE”mark in G RANTED id. . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the validityofdocument. clear warningthat“willfulfalse statements .are and theactualEdgeMagazinecoverforJuly2004(right)areshownbelow: Decl. ¶13,Exh.C). Langdell was publisher of EdgeMagazine,however,themagazine coversubmitted totheUSPTObyDr. number writtenclearlyonit”( ever publishedwasinthespringof1995( according tothemagazine’s publisher,Marvel Entertainment, LLC,thelast“Edge”comic book and unrelatedcompany comic-book coversubmitted asaspecimen, however,hadbeenpublishedbyanentirely different Langdell submitted totheUSPTOa“[s]cannedcoverofourcomic bookEDGEissue2.” The (RJN Exh.S).Asevidenceofhiscompany’s “use”ofthe“EDGE”mark incommerce, Dr. USPTO forthe“EDGE”mark inconnectionwithvariouspapergoods, includingcomic books the “EDGE”registration(RJNExh.M). The USPTOapparentlyrelieduponDr.Langdell’sdeclarationandfalsespecimen andmaintained “EDGE” mark onJune20,2006,inapparentreliance Dr.Langdell’sswornrepresentationthat 2 Thisordernotesthatallofthe USPTOfilings Second not , inJanuary2003,EdgeInteractiveMediafiledaseparateapplicationwiththe

agenuinecopyofanymagazine coverthathadeverbeenpublished(Binns sSbitdt h ST ActualCover As SubmittedtotheUSPTO It wasfaked more thanadecadeearlier id . atExh.L). . Thespecimen submitted byDr.LangdelltotheUSPTO(left) punishable byfineorimprisonment” andcould jeopardize id. 2 Accordingtoadeclarationsubmitted bythe at ¶¶9–11).Nevertheless,theUSPTOregistered the anddeclarationssignedbyDr. Langdellcontaineda 9 (BardDecl.¶11).Evenmore remarkable, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 example, inhisdeclaration,Dr.Langdellasserts(LangdellDecl.¶22)(emphasis added): declaration filedinsupportoftheinstantmotion containsnumerous misrepresentations. For Marvel’s “DoubleEdgeAlpha”andOmega” comics wasinOctober1995( of Marvel’s“OvertheEdge”comic mini-series wasinAugust1996,andthelastpublicationof publication ofMarvel’s“CuttingEdge”comic bookwasinDecember 1995,thelastpublication Comics (ownedbyMarvel)in thespringof1995(BardDecl.¶11).Similarly, thelast As stated,however,thelastinstallment ofthe“Edge”comic-book serieswaspublishedbyMalibu the comic book coverwasrepresentativeofplaintiff’s also confirmed thatthelicenseonlycovered theuseof“EDGE”mark inrelationtoprintand confirmed thatitwasalicenseeofEdgeInteractiveMediabetween 1996and2004,thepublisher Magazine’s statusasalicensee.Althoughthemagazine’s publisher—FuturePublishing licensees ofDr.Langdell’scompanies foranyofthesemarks ( Deputy GeneralCounselWalter Bard,neitherMarvelnorMalibu Comics areorwereever out ofprintfornearly15years.Evenmore egregious,accordingtoMarvelVicePresidentand 4–6). Inotherwords,noneofthesecomic booksisbeing“currentlymarketed” —allhavebeen between 1989andtoatleast2003. of the“EDGE”mark incommerce byplaintiff,itslicensees,orpredecessorsininterest commerce (RJNExh.T). 3 Thisevidenceispresentedby EAtosupportits Similar allegeduntruthsplagueDr.Langdell’srepresentationswithrespecttoEdge In thisconnection,EAalsopresentscompelling evidencethattherewasnobonafideuse .LicenseeMarvelComics’ “CUTTINGEDGE,”“Overthe f. include: that displayoneormore oftheEDGEfamily ofmarks. These services CC aretrueandcorrectexemplars ofproductpackagingand promoted at licensee MalibuComics’ “Edge”comic bookseries,as EDGE,” and“DoubleEDGE”comic bookseries,and AttachedheretoasExhibitsW, X,Y,Z,AA,BB& 22. currently marketedbyEdge’sdulyauthorizedlicensees 3 Inpresentingthisevidence,EAassertsthatDr.Langdell’s www.edgegames.com. * 10 claim thattheassertedmarks havebeenabandoned. current use

See id. ExhibitBB. at¶¶7,10). of the“EDGE”mark in id. at all at¶¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “Snoopy: TheCoolComputer Game” ( Dr. Langdellsubmitted asevidenceofsupposedusethemark aboxcoverofgame entitled mark “THEEDGE”forusewithvariousgoods,includingvideo-game softwareandcomic books, to plaintiff’s“THEEDGE”mark. Forexample, plaintiff’s “EDGE”mark in2009( Exhs. O,P).TheUSPTOrelieduponthisquestionablevideo-game packaging whenitrenewed by EdgeGames untilOctober2008—nearlyfouryearsafterthegame’s purportedrelease(RJN video game includedawebsiteaddress“www.mythora.com,” thiswebsitewasn’tevenregistered Curiously, whiletheexteriorpackagingsubmitted byDr.Langdelltothe USPTOfortheMythora has beensellingthevideogame Mythora(supposedlybearingthe“EDGE”mark) since2004. mark incommerce issuspect.Forexample, Dr.Langdell’sdeclarationassertedthatEdgeGames marks. Theywere“naked”licenses. agreements grantedplaintiff therighttoexercisequalitycontroloveruseof the“EDGE” electronic versionsofEdgeMagazine( wherein FuturePublishingwasgrantedaworldwidelicensetothemarketing andpromotion of October 2004,FuturePublishingandEdgeInteractiveMediaenteredintoanewagreement period, EdgeMagazinewasnotevendistributedwithintheUnitedStates( online versionsofEdgeMagazine Game” (right)areshownbelow: submitted byDr.Langdell (left)andtheactualboxcoverfor“Snoopy:TheCoolComputer cover for thevideogame submitted byplaintiff totheUSPTOwasdoctored.Thespecimen (Klieger Decl.¶4,Exh.C).Evenmore disturbing,itappearsas thoughthespecimen ofthebox years oldatthetime oftheapplication,rendering itdoubtfulthatwasstillbeingsoldin1996 .Fraud andAbandonmentRegarding“THEEDGE” Compelling evidenceof fraud ontheUSPTO hasalsobeensubmitted byEAwithrespect B. Even after2003,theevidencethatplaintiffhadbeenmaking bonafideuseofthe“EDGE” id. in theUnitedKingdom atExh.R). id. id. atExh.E).Thegame, however,wasalreadyseven at¶¶7–8).Critically,neitheroftheselicensing 11 in March1996,hisapplicationtoregisterthe (Binns Decl.¶6).Duringthattime ibid. ). Then,in United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 USPTO (left)andthe for “THEEDGE”inthespecimen submitted totheUSPTO. cover ofthevideogame differintwokeyrespects. As shown,the“boxcover”specimen submitted totheUSPTObyDr.Langdelland theactualbox company whowas of the“Edge”comic book—which,asstated,waslastpublishedadecadeearlierbyanunrelated with comic books(RJNExh.F). Insupportoftheapplication,Dr.Langdellsubmitted thecover by Dr.LangdellinNovember 2005forhisapplicationtoregister“THEEDGE”inconnection Edge isatrademark ofTheEdgeInteractiveMedia,Inc.” the specimen submitted totheUSPTOcontained anentirelydifferent disclaimer thatstated“The disclaimer forthe“PEANUTScharacters,”whichappearsonbottom rightofthegenuinebox, Even more evidenceoffraudisseen inthecomic-book specimen submitted totheUSPTO

sSbitdt h ST ActualComicBook AsSubmittedtotheUSPTO ActualBoxCover AsSubmittedtotheUSPTO never actual alicenseeof plaintiff —asaspecimen. Thespecimen submitted tothe comic book(right)areshownbelow(KliegerDecl.¶5,Exhs.D,E): 12 First , a“TM”hasbeenaddednexttothelogo Second , insteadofacopyright United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 between 1989and2003. “THE EDGE”mark wasactuallybeingusedon Langdell’s applicationwhenitissuedtheregistrationfor“THEEDGE”in2009(RJNExh.G). were notpresentintheoriginalcomic-book cover.Nevertheless,theUSPTOrelieduponDr. trademark ofTheEdgeInteractiveMedia,Inc.AllRightsReserved.”These“enhancements” Third “TM” wasaddedtothemanipulated title(itisvisibleonthetoprightof thelast“E”in“EDGE”). “THE EDGE”mark wasbeingusedincommerce inconnectionwithcomic books. changed from “Edge”to“TheEdge”inthespecimen. Thiswasdoneapparentlyto showthat been doctoredinthreematerial ways. Once againplaying“spotthedifferences,” thespecimen submitted totheUSPTOappearshave and whatEAassertsasbeingthe Edge Games) entitled “Garfield:Winter’s Tail,”whichhadbeenreleasedbySoftek(a predecessor-in-interestto company’s useofthemark incommerce, Dr.Langdellsubmitted theboxcoverofavideogame EDGE” forvariousgoods,includingvideo-game software( February 2006,Dr.Langdellsubmitted anapplicationtotheUSPTOregister“GAMER’S (Klieger Decl.¶7,Exh.F): , adisclaimer wastackedontothebottom ofthespecimen thatstated“‘TheEdge’isthe .FraudandAbandonment Regarding “GAMER’S C. In lightofthesemisrepresentations, EAarguesthatthereareseriousdoubtsoverwhether Evidence offraudinfectsplaintiff’sregi over seventeenyearsearlier

A umte oteUPO ActualBoxCover AsSubmittedtotheUSPTO actual First box coverforthevideogame (right)areshownbelow in1989.Thespecimen submitted totheUSPTO(left) , andmost egregious,thename ofthecomic bookwas stration for“GAMER’SEDGE”aswell.In 13 any productsbyEdgeGames duringtheperiod id. atExh.H).Asaspecimen ofhis

EDGE” Second , a United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 products weresoldonAmazon.com ratherthan legitimacy ofplaintiff’scurrentsales activities—includingplaintiff’smisleading representationthatits mark. InApril1995, Marvelfiledanapplicati plaintiff oritslicenseesmade anybonafideuseofthe“GAMER’SEDGE”mark priorto2008. ( a licenseeofplaintiffuntil2008,whensu presented evidencethatthevendorofthesecomputers —VelocityMicrodidnotevenbecome EDGE” wereusedinconnectionwiththesaleofpersonalcomputers since1998,EAhas actually beenusedcontinuouslybyEdgeGames orhasbeenabandoned. retroactively ontoproductpackagingbyplaintiff,therecordistaintedastowhethermark has event, givendisturbingevidencethatthe“GAMER’SEDGE”mark may havebeengrafted being soldintheUnitedStatesratherthanKingdom (Langdell Decl.Exh.T).Inany Exhs. G–R). “[t]he resourcerequested.cannotbefound”(L declaration asbeing for EAattempted topurchasevariousvideogames thatDr.Langdellrepresentedinhis bearing the“GAMER’SEDGE”mark arehighlysuspect(Opp.13).Forexample, whencounsel submitted evidencedemonstrating thatDr.Langdell’sclaimed salesofvideogames supposedly fide useofthe“GAMER’SEDGE”mark overthepasttwodecades.Inparticular,EAhas registration, EAhasalsosubmitted evidencecallingintoquestionwhetherplaintiffmade bona EDGE” mark wasissuedtoplaintiffinFebruary2008forusewithvideogames (RJNExh.J). Based uponthisapparentlydoctoredspecimen submitted byDr.Langdell,the“GAMER’S submitted totheUSPTOis One criticaldifferencestandsout:the“GAMER’SEDGE”mark thatisvisibleonthespecimen id. at¶23;RJNExh.D).Insum, thereisnoclear evidence—atleastonthisrecordthat 4 While counselfor plaintiffattempted While toexplainthese errormessages atthehearing, suspect .FraudandAbandonmentRegarding“CUTTING Fraud isalsoallegedbyEAsurroundingplai D. Finally, whileDr.Langdellclaimed inhis In additiontothisevidenceassaultingthevalidityof plaintiff’s “GAMER’SEDGE” 4 Additionally,itisunclearfrom Dr.Langdell’sexhibitswhethercertaingames were currently not

sold presentanywhereonthegenuineboxcoverforvideogame. by EdgeGames, theyonlyreceivederrormessages statingthat Amazon.com Marketplace—cannotbeignored. on withtheUSPTOtoregister “CUTTINGEDGE” 14 angdell Decl.Exhs.K,N,O,R;Klieger declaration thatboth“EDGE”and“GAMER’S ed VelocityMicrofortrademark infringement ntiff’s registrationofthe“CUTTINGEDGE”

EDGE” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EA claims thatitreceived February, April,June,and Augustofthatyear(LangdellDecl.¶26).Despite theseassertions, in January,March,May, July,andSeptember 2008,andleftvoicemails withthedepartment in to hisdeclaration,Dr.Langdellthenpurportedly sentnumerous letterstoEA’slegaldepartment 2007 letterandDr.Langdelldidnotreceiveareply toit( announced (LangdellDecl.¶25,Exh.DD).EA’s legaldepartment hasnorecord ofthisJuly EA (whichwasattachedtohisdeclaration) after itwasannouncedinJuly2007.Indeed,he claims tohavemailed acease-and-desistletterto described as:“Coverof June 1999registrationdate.Tosupportthiscontention,heattachedasaspecimen whathe “CUTTING EDGE”mark hadbeenin Declaration ofUseandIncontestabilityunderSections8&15”whereinhecertifiedthatthe “Cutting Edge”comic waseverpublishedbyMarvelin1995,Dr.Langdellfileda“Combined Marvel sincethatsingleissue( published inDecember 1995.Noother“CuttingEdge”comic bookhaseverbeenpublishedby for useasthetitleofacomic book(BardDecl.¶ The registrationissuedinJune1999( assigning itsrightsinthemark, includingthepe made “extensiveuse”ofthemark sinceOctober1984(RJNExh.U).Marvelrespondedby Opposition toMarvel’sregistrationof“CUTTI As stated,MarvelwasneveralicenseeofanyDr.Langdell’scompanies. 2005. Additionally,thecomic bookwasnot,andhadneverbeen,“soldvia[plaintiff’s]licensee.” specimen wasmost certainly the same at Exh.W) (emphasis added).Thespecimen submitted totheUSPTO,however,wascoverof By hisownadmission, Dr.Langdell knewaboutthereleaseof“Mirror’sEdge”shortly Fast-forward sixyearstoNovember 2005.Despitethefactthatonly .E 7. single-issue VIDENCE OF “Cutting Edge”comic published byMarvelin1995.Inotherwords,the currently onsale no not D voice mails from Dr. Langdell duringthistime periodandthatthe id. ELAY IN thecoverofacomic book“currentlyonsale”inNovember at¶3).InNovember 2006,Dr.LangdellfiledaNoticeof id. continuous use atExh.V). F ILING comic booksoldviaourlicenseebearingthemark” ( twodaysafter“Mirror’sEdge”waspublicly NG EDGE,”claiming thathiscompanies had 15 S nding application,toplaintiffinSeptember 1997. 3). Asingleissueof“CuttingEdge”wasthen UIT incommerce foratleastfiveyearsafterthe id . at¶25;SchatzDecl.3).According one issueofthe id. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 agreement. the UnitedStatesDistrictCourt fortheEasternDistrict supposedly senttoEAinJanuary, March,May,July,andSeptember 2008. later ( email, andhadnofurtherinteractionswithDr.Langdelluntilthisactionwasfiledthreemonths once againcalleduponEAtoceaseusingthe“Mirror’sEdge”name. EAdidnotrespondtothe release of“Mirror’sEdge”fortheAppleiPadandiPhone.Inthiscommunication, Dr.Langdell another communication from Dr.LangdelluntilMarch2010,shortlyafterEAhadannouncedthe The talksendedinJuly2009withoutanagreement (SchatzDecl.¶13).EAdidnotreceive confusion between“Mirror’sEdge”andthe“EDGE”marks purportedlyownedbyDr.Langdell. these negotiations,EAreiterateditspositiontoEdgeGames thattherewasnolikelihoodof waited untilJune2009tore-attempt negotiationswithEA( thereafter onJanuary16,2009(HershbergerDecl.¶13). of “Mirror’sEdge”beganinearnestonNovember 11,2008,withaPCversionreleasedshortly “final warnings”weregivenbyDr.LangdelltoEAinthesecommunications. Meanwhile,sales judgments inourfavor”and“onthemerits” ( companies hadrecentlyprevailedinasimilar trademark actionagainstathirdparty“with injunction againstEAinaletterdatedNovember 10,2008,andrepresentingtoEAthathis Langdell continuedthroughDecember 2008,withDr.Langdellthreateningtoseekapreliminary ( marks requested additionaldocumentation regardingtheownershipanduseofasserted“EDGE” explaining EAwhyits“Mirror’sEdge”videogame September 2008letter,EA—throughoutsidecounselsentaletterinreplytoDr.Langdell first letteritreceivedfrom him wasonSeptember 24,2008(SchatzDecl.¶3). id. 6 5 Infact,thatseparateaction, in whichVeloc Dr.Langdelldid Instead ofimmediately seekingapreliminary injunctionto halt thesesales,Dr.Langdell id. at¶¶14–15). at¶4,Exh.B).Aback-and-forthbetween not attachtohisdeclarationany copies ofthese“numerous letters” thatwere * ity MicrofiledsuitagainstDr. Langdell’scompanies in ofVirginia,endedpursuantto aconfidentialsettlement id . at¶¶5–12,Exhs.C–J). 16 didnotinfringe.EA’sreplyletteralso EA’soutsidecounsel,EADICE,andDr. id. at¶13;LangdellDecl.28).In 6 Numerous purported 5 Inresponsetothe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 marks have beenabandoned,whichwouldalsorenderthem invalid. 2002). Thesemisrepresentations also supportEA’s their “presumption ofvalidity.” EA’s evidenceiscredited,suchfraudcould(and likelywould)striptheseregisteredmarks of “EDGE” marks, possibly warrantingcriminal penaltiesif themisrepresentations provetrue.If fraud againsttheUSPTOinobtainingand/ormain detailed above,therecordcontainsnumerous items ofevidencethatplaintiffwilfullycommitted interest intheasserted“EDGE”marks, thepreliminary injunctionrecordspeaksfor itself. As Cir. 2005)(quoting15U.S.C.1114(1)(a)–(b)). deceive.’” must thenshowthatEA’s“useofthemark ‘is likelytocauseconfusion,ormistake, orto 1197 (9thCir.2009)(citationomitted). Ifownershipofsuchamark isestablished,EdgeGames owns avalidmark, andthusaprotectableinterest.” record detailedherein—thatanyofthesefactorsweighinitsfavor. below, plaintiffEdgeGames has failedtoestablish—baseduponthepreliminary injunction Natural ResourcesDefenseCouncil balance ofequitiestipsinhisfavor,andthataninjunctionisthepublicinterest. the merits, thatheislikelytosuffer irreparableharm intheabsenceof preliminary relief, thatthe was filed(Dkt.No.16).ThisorderfollowsahearingheldonSeptember 30. selling the“Mirror’sEdge”videogame tothepublic,instantpreliminary injunctionmotion without anymotions beingfiled.Finally,on .TrademarkValidity On theissueofwhetherplaintiffhassufficien A. L To prevailonitsclaim oftrademark infringement, EdgeGames “must demonstrate thatit 1. A plaintiffseekingapreliminary injunctionmust establishthatheislikelytosucceedon Edge Games filedthisactiononJune15,2010(Dkt.No.1).Nearlytwomonths passed KP PermanentMake-Up,Inc.v.LastingImpressionI, IKELIHOOD OF IKELIHOOD S See TieTech,Inc.v.Kinedyne Corp. UCCESS ON THE , ----U.S.----,129S.Ct.365,374(2008).Asexplained ANALYSIS August 20,over21months afterEAfirstbegan 17 M taining registrationsformany oftheasserted argument thatmany (if notall)ofplaintiff’s Lahoti v.VeriCheck,Inc. ERITS tly demonstrated thatitownsaprotectable , 296F.3d778,783(9th Cir. , 408F.3d596,602(9th , 586F.3d1190, Winter v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 AMF Inc.v.SleekcraftBoats defendant’s intentinselectingthemark, and(8)likelihoodof expansionoftheproductlines. used, (6)typeofgoodsandthedegreecarelikely tobeexercisedbythepurchaser,(7) the goods,(3)similarity ofthemarks, (4)evid eight factorssetforthin marks. Assuch,EdgeGames hasnotestablishedthatitislikelytosucceedonthemerits. injunction recorddoesnotsupportalikelihoodofconfusionbetweentheassertedandaccused that itislikelytosucceedonthemerits. valid trademark isaprerequisitetofindingofinfringement, EdgeGames hasfailedtoestablish made intheordinarycourseoftrade,andnotmade merely toreservearightinmark.”). Sincea prima facieevidenceofabandonment. ‘Use’ of 296 F.3dat783; demonstrated alikelihoodofsuccessinprovingthattheassertedmarks arevalid. cannot becreditedtojustifytheextraordinaryreliefrequestedherein. of hisrepresentationshavebecome highlysuspectinlightoftheevidencepresentedbyEA.They commerce andthepurported“sales”ofhiscompany’s video-game products.Inotherwords,all Langdell’s assertionsregardingthebonafideandcontinuoususeofassertedmarks in declaration werematerially misleading ordownri Entertainment andFuturePublishing—revealedthatmany ofDr.Langdell’sassertionsinhis declarations providedbyEAfrom twoof the representationsmade byDr.Langdellinhisdeclarationsubmitted totheCourt.Indeed, O’Neal Distributing,Inc To determine whethera“likelihoodofconfusion”exists,thisordermust examine the LikelihoodofConfusion Even iftheassertedmarks werepresumed valid andprotectable,thepreliminary B. In sum, basedupontheevidenceinrecord,thisorderfindsthatplaintiffhasnot Additionally, EAhasputforthsubstantialevidencecallingintoseverequestionmany of see also AMF Inc.v.SleekcraftBoats ., 578F.3d1154,1162(9th Cir.2009) 15U.S.C.1127(“Nonuse[ofamark] for3consecutiveyearsshallbe , 599F.2d341,348–49(9th Cir.1979); plaintiff’s supposed“licensees”—Marvel ence ofactualconfusion,(5)marketing channels 18 a mark means thebonafideuseofsuchmark ght false.ThesefalsehoodsinfectallofDr. : (1)strengthofthemark, (2)proximity of One Industries,LLCv.Jim See TieTech, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the likelihoodofconfusion(Opp. 22). and EADICEmarks areprominently displayedon“Mi Similarly, underplaintiff’s“reverseconfusion” low degreeofcareastobeconfusedthepublisher ordeveloperofthecompeting products. similar tothe“Mirror’s Edge”mark orthatpurch the public).Moreover,plaintiffhasfailedtoshow thateachoftheassertedmarks isconfusingly there isnoevidenceofactualconfusion(despite over 21months of“Mirror’sEdge”beingsoldto susceptible toattack.Evenifthe“EDGE”marks weredeemed “arbitrary,”asplaintiffargues, the word“Mirror.”Inthisconnection,“strength”ofplaintiff’sassertedmarks isalsohighly This conclusionisbolsteredbythefactthatword“edge”in“Mirror’sEdge”usedtomodify “Mirror’s Edge”foranyreasonbuttodescribethevisualandthematic aspectsofthevideogame. consumers atall. compelling evidencethatplaintiff’svideo-game productsmay notevenbeavailableforsaleto the goodsinmarketplace supportitsclaims ofinfringement. Indeed,EAhasproduced major including pre-announcements anddemonstrations atmajor industryevents,andwassoldby marketed withsignificantmonetary investment selling hiscompany’s currentandfuturevideo-game products.Giventhat“Mirror’sEdge”was Langdell neverstatesexactlyhowmuch capitalhehasinvestedindeveloping,marketing, and — beyondDr.Langdell’sbarestatements inhissuspectdeclaration—ispaperthin.Indeed,Dr. retail channelsusedbyEAtodistribute“Mirror’sEdge.”Theevidencesupportthisassertion numerous “EDGE”-brandedvideogames formodern gaming consolesthroughtheexactsame For example, accordingtoDr.Langdell,EdgeGames iscurrentlyselling(orplanstosell) arguments onthisissuearetaintedbythesuspectevidencesetforthinDr.Langdell’sdeclaration. endorsement, orapprovalofthecompeting products “reasonably prudentconsumer” inthemarketplace islikelytobeconfusedastheorigin, retailers,plaintiffhasnotestablishedthatthemarketing channelsusedortheproximity of 7 Thefactthatthevariousasserted marks arenot Additionally, thereisnoevidenceintherecordthatEAchosetocallit’sproduct The preliminary injunctionrecordandthe rror’s Edge”advertisingandpackaging furtherreduces s throughsophisticated,high-profilechannels, theoryofinfringement, the recorddoesnot 19 even visuallysimilar toeachotherandthat theEA asers of“Mirror’sEdge”wouldexercisesucha Sleekcraft herein. Indeed,themajority ofplaintiff’s factorsdonotsupportafindingthat 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Thomas McCarthy,McCarthyonTrademarks and UnfairCompetition §23:10(2006). from thesenioruser’smark, thejuniorusersaturate user’s goodsareassociatedwith thejunioruser.“Ina mark thatthemarket isswamped, resultinginalike asserted andaccusedmarks areconfusinglysimilar. context ofpreliminary injunctiverelief,irreparable harm isestablishedwhenaplaintiff suffer irreparableharm intheabsenceofpreliminary relief.” — evenfortrademark actions.Rather,itistheplaintiff’sburdentoprovethat“helikely on themerits. in thislitigation. are likelytobeconfusedastheorigin,endorsement, orapprovalofanytheproductsatissue more “similar” toEA’s“Mirror’sEdge”logo(specifically,itwaschangedfrom bluetored). another logo, EAhasputforthconvincingevidencethatthelogoitselfwasfirstusedincommerce by that canbeafforded totheassertedmarks islimited. Finally, withrespecttoplaintiff’s “EDGE” licensed byEdgeGames (Opp.20–21).Giventhiscr registered trademarks andproductnames withinthevideogaming industrythatare origin ofgoods.Bycontrast,EAhasproducedevidencethattheterm “edge”isfoundinmany purchasing publicrecognizesthattheterm “edge”intheassertedmarks isindicativeofacommon shared betweenthem. Onthisissue,thereisnoevidenceintherecordshowingthat constitute a“family ofmarks” whereconfusioncanbeanalyzedbaseduponacommon element Edge” franchise. that anyexist)wouldbelievetheywere support plaintiff’sclaim thatpurchasersofits 9 8 Thisorderisnotboundby,and declinestodefer Reverseconfusionoccurswhenajunioruser .I Following theSupreme Court’sdecisionin 2. In sum, underthe Yet anotherfailedargument isplaintiff’sassertionthatthevarious“EDGE”marks entity,FuturePublishing,andthatitsappearancewasrecentlyalteredtomake itappear RREPARABLE 9 8 Forthesereasons,EdgeGames hasfailed toestablishthatitislikelysucceed

Sleekcraft H ARM factors,plaintiffhasnotsufficientlyshownthatconsumers s themarket and‘overwhelms thesenior user.’”3J. lihood thatconsumers willmistakenly believethesenior associated withEA,EADICE,orthe“Mirror’s reverse confusionsituation,rather thantryingtoprofit various“EDGE”-brandedproducts(totheextent engages insuchextensivepromotion ofgoodsundera 20 to, determinations bytheUSPTOasto whetherthe Winter owded field,thescopeofprotection(ifany) , irreparableharm cannotbepresumed Winter , 129S.Ct.at374.Inthe not ownedor United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 has Edge” franchisefrom inundatingthemarket is already occurred.Theundisputedfactthatplai injunction Edge” franchisehasalreadybeendone.EdgeGames hasnotshownwhyissuing apreliminary bulk ofthealleged“irreparableharm” totheassertedmarks purportedlycausedbythe “Mirror’s sale tothepublicbeforeseekingapreliminary injunction.Duetothisunreasonabledelay,the “Mirror’s Edge”wasfirstannouncedand21months since“Mirror’sEdge” wasfirstofferedfor the filingandresolutionofthisactioncouldnotbeadequatelyremedied bylegaldamages. adequately shownthatthepotentialharm tothe“EDGE”marks duringtheinterim periodbetween gaming-related industriesforlicensingopportunities.Inthisconnection,plaintiffhasnot question whetherplaintiff’sbusinessactivitieslegitimately extendbeyondtrollingvarious the Courtconcerningplaintiff’s currentandfuture salesandbusinessactivities,itisanopen continued useofthe“Mirror’sEdge”name. protectable marks, EdgeGames cannotsuffer plaintiff’s assertedmarks tempers thelikelihoodof plaintiff. While ajurymay ultimately findotherwise,thisthunderstorm overthevalidityof evidence thattheassertedmarks werefraudulentlyregisteredand/orhavebeenabandoned by meet thisburden. Maxwell-Jolly later date,intheordinarycourseoflitigation. unlikely tobemade wholebyanawardofmonetary damages orsome otherlegalremedy ata not demonstrated thatitislikelytosufferirreparableharm absentpreliminary relief. For thesereasons,thisorderfinds—basedupon therecordpresented—thatEdgeGames Third Second First now , asstatedinthepriorsection,preliminary injunctionrecordcontainscompelling , andmost telling,itisundisputedthatEdgeGames waitedoverthreeyearssince , 563F.3d847,851–52(9thCir.2009).Asexplainedbelow,plaintiffhasfailedto , giventhesuspectnatureofDr.Langdell’srepresentationstobothUSPTOand wouldpreventanyirreparableharm toits marks beyondthe“harm” thathas any See CaliforniaPharmacistsAss’nv. alone ntiff didnottimely acttopreventthe“Mirror’s 21 harm toitspropertyrightsdueEA’s irreparableharm. Indeed,withoutvalidand sufficient todenytheinstantmotion. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 plaintiff. use oftheassertedmarks areinfectedbyeviden that thebalanceof equitiestipsinitsfavor. Allof itsrepresentationsregardingthevalidityand interest. Assuch,apreliminary injunctionisnotwarrantedunderthefactors setforthin preliminary relief,thatthebalanceofequities tipsinitsfavor,orthataninjunctionisthepublic likely tosucceedonthemerits, thatitislikelytosufferirreparableharm intheabsenceof be confusedordeceivedbytheproductsatissue. injunction. Rather,asstated,plaintiffhasnotsu trademark infringement actions—avoidingconfus defendant. franchise oversuchalongperiodoftime wouldbe obtain apreliminary injunctionafterallowingEAtoinvestinanddevelopthe“Mirror’sEdge” of thevideogame fortheAppleiPadandiPhone.Giventhisrecord,allowingEdgeGames to create andreleaseproductscarryingthe“Mirror’sEdge”name, including newlyreleasedversions allow the“Mirror’sEdge”franchisetodevelopandexpand.Duringthisdelay,EAcontinued “Mirror’s Edge”videogame beganinearnest,it could havesoughtapreliminary injunctionpriorto(orshortlyafter)salesoftheoriginal promoting the“Mirror’sEdge”franchise. Itnowhasmillions of customers. While EdgeGames services bearingtheassertedmarks. that EdgeGames hasinvested .B Finally, thetworemaining factorsweighheavilyagainstgrantingthereliefsoughtby 3. For theforegoingreasons,thisorderfindsthatplaintiff hasfailedtoestablishthatitis Second By contrast,EAhasshownthatitinvestedmillions of dollarsintobuildingand First See E-Systems,Inc.v.Monitek,Inc., , EdgeGames hasnotshownthatthepublicinteresttypicallyassociatedwith , forallthereasonsalreadydiscussedinthisorder,EdgeGames has ALANCING THE any * E amount offundsintothedevelopment ofrecentproductsand QUITIES ANDTHE ce ofdeceit.Moreover,thereisscantevidence 22 fficiently establishedthatconsumers arelikelyto 720 F.2d604,607(9thCir.1983). did not.Instead,plaintiffwaited21months to plainlyinequitableandhighlyprejudicialto ion toconsumers —wouldfavorapreliminary P UBLIC I NTEREST not established Winter . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 preliminary injunctionis ae: coe ,21.Dated: October1,2010. Based uponthefindingsandconclusionsset IT ISSOORDERED. D ENIED . CONCLUSION 23 U W forth herein,plaintiff’smotion fora NITED ILLIAM S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J UDGE