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
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF Document 19 Filed 11/30/12 Page 1 of 37 1 BRUNO W. TARABICHI, CA State Bar No. 215129 [email protected] 2 OWENS TARABICHI LLP 111 N. Market St., Suite 730 3 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: 408.298.8200 4 Facsimile: 408.521.2203 Pro Hac Vice 5 PUOY K. PREMSRIRUT, State Bar No. 7141 6 [email protected] BROWN BROWN & PREMSRIRUT 7 520 S. Fourth Street, Second Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 8 Telephone: 702.384.5563 Facsimile: 702.385.1752 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND BEVERAGE, LLC, a Nevada limited Case No. 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF 14 liability company, PLAINTIFF RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND 15 Plaintiff, BEVERAGE, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS FRANK SPENCER AND 16 vs. CRAZY HORSE CONSULTING'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 17 FRANK SPENCER, an individual; INJUNCTION CRAZY HORSE CONSULTING, INC., an 18 Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 – 50, Case Filed: August 24, 2012 inclusive, Judge: Honorable Larry R. Hicks 19 Defendants. 20 FRANK SPENCER, an individual; and 21 CRAZY HORSE CONSULTING, INC., an Ohio corporation, 22 Counterclaimants, 23 vs. 24 RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND 25 BEVERAGE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, 26 Counterdefendant. 27 28 owens tarabichi llp OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM Counselors At Law (CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF) Case 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF Document 19 Filed 11/30/12 Page 2 of 37 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 4 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2 5 A. The original CRAZY HORSE and crowded field of CRAZY HORSE marks .................... 2 6 B. Crazy Horse In Las Vegas and Russell Road’s adoption of CRAZY HORSE III ............... 3 7 C. Spencer and CHC try to appropriate the widely adopted CRAZY HORSE mark ............... 4 8 III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 5 9 A. Spencer and CHC will suffer no irreparable harm if an injunction is denied ...................... 6 10 1. Spencer and CHC’s delay of over a year evidences a lack of irreparable harm ............ 7 11 2. Spencer and CHC are not entitled to an injunction because monetary damages are 12 adequate as evidenced by their offer to license Russell Road ....................................... 9 13 3. Spencer and CHC are not entitled to an injunction because they do not use the 14 CRAZY HORSE mark in Las Vegas or any nearby geographic markets .................... 10 15 B. Spencer and CHC cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits ................... 12 16 1. Spencer and CHC are bound by a co-existence agreement that permits Russell Road to 17 use of the CRAZY HORSE III mark ........................................................................... 12 18 2. Rusell Road’s use of CRAZY HORSE III does not create a likelihood of confusion 19 with Spencer and CHC’s purported use of CRAZY HORSE ...................................... 14 20 a. The crowded field of CRAZY HORSE marks precludes confusion ........................... 15 21 b. The lack of proximity of services weighs against confusion ....................................... 16 22 c. Similarity of Marks ...................................................................................................... 16 23 d. Evidence of Actual Confusion ..................................................................................... 18 24 e. The parties’ differing marketing channels weigh against confusion ........................... 18 25 f. The type and nature of the parties’ services weigh against confusion ......................... 19 26 g. Russell Road adopted the CRAZY HORSE III mark in good faith ............................ 20 27 h. The expansion of product lines factor is neutral .......................................................... 20 28 i. Consent agreements demonstrate there is no likelihood of confusion......................... 21 owens tarabichi llp OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM Counselors At Law i (CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF) Case 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF Document 19 Filed 11/30/12 Page 3 of 37 1 3. Spencer and CHC’s registration and applications are likely void or invalid ............... 22 2 4. The preliminary injunction should also be denied due to Spencer and CHC’s 3 fraudulent marking, which constitutes unclean hands ................................................. 23 4 C. The Balance of Hardships Tips Significantly in Russell Road’s Favor ............................. 24 5 D. A preliminary injunction is not in the public interest ........................................................ 25 6 E. Spencer and CHC should be required to post a $23 million bond as security in the event 7 that Russell Road is wronglyfully enjoined ....................................................................... 26 8 F. A preliminary injunction should not be granted because it alters the status quo ............... 28 9 G. Russell Road requests leave to take discovery to oppose this motion if necessary ........... 30 10 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 30 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 owens tarabichi llp OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM Counselors At Law ii (CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF) Case 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF Document 19 Filed 11/30/12 Page 4 of 37 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24/7 Tribeca Fitness, LLC, 447 F. Supp. 2d 266, 287–88 (S.D.N.Y. 4 2006) .......................................................................................................................................... 10 5 3 Point Distribution, LLC v. CafePress.com, Inc., No. 07-0432, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17128, *7 6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2008) ........................................................................................................... 12 7 AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th Cir. 1979) ... 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26 8 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90979, *190-191 9 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012) ............................................................................................................... 9 10 Blue v. Johnson, No. 07-05370, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120253, *6 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) .... 28 11 BoomerangIt, Inc. v. ID Armor, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-0920, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86382, *9 (N.D. 12 Cal. June 21, 2012) ...................................................................................................................... 7 13 Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurant, LLC, 360 F.3d 125, 134–35 (2d Cir. 2004) ..... 11, 13, 16 14 Bridges in Org., Inc. v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., No. B-91-23, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15449, 15 * 7 (D. Md. June 25, 1991) ........................................................................................................ 29 16 Caesars World, Inc. v. July, No. 11-cv-00536, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122914, *4–8 (D. Nev. 17 Oct. 24, 2011) ............................................................................................................................. 24 18 California Packing Corp. v. Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 64 F.2d 370 (CCPA 1933) .................... 14 19 Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Lenox Laboratories, Inc., 815 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1987) ..... 23, 25 20 Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 840 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................ 28 21 Clark County Prosecutors Ass’n v. Clark County Bd. of Comm’r, No. 2:11-cv-1111, 2012 U.S. 22 Dist. LEXIS 64811, *5 (D. Nev. May , 2012) ............................................................................. 6 23 CLT Logistics v. River West Brands, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1072 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (citing and 24 referencing Edelman’s article) ..................................................................................................... 8 25 Collins v. Gourdine, No. 2:12-cv-01599, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133046, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 18, 26 2012) ........................................................................................................................................ 7, 9 27 ConocoPhillips Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 5:12-cv-00576, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20972, *8-9 (N.D. 28 owens tarabichi llp OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM Counselors At Law iii (CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF) Case 2:12-cv-01514-LRH-GWF Document 19 Filed 11/30/12 Page 5 of 37 1 Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) ....................................................................................................................... 7 2 Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 364 (2d Cir. 1959) .......................... 10 3 Delphon Indus., LLC v. Int’l Test Solutions Inc., No. 11-cv-1338, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119588, 4 *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011) ...................................................................................................... 7 5 Easton Business Opportunities, Inc. v. Town Executive Suites-Eastern Marketplace, LLC, 230 6 P.3d 827, 830 (Nev. 2010) ......................................................................................................... 13 7 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 US 388, 393 (2006) ............................................................ 6 8 Flexible Lifeline Systems, Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc.,