1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:21-cv-01051-AB-JEM Document 39 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1089 1 MAYER BROWN LLP JOHN NADOLENCO (SBN 181128) 2 [email protected] C. MITCHELL HENDY (SBN 282036) 3 [email protected] 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 5 6 A. JOHN P. MANCINI (pro hac vice) [email protected] 7 JONATHAN W. THOMAS (pro hac vice) [email protected] 8 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 9 Telephone: (212) 506-2295 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 PASADENA TOURNAMENT OF Case No.: 2:21-cv-01051 15 ROSES ASSOCIATION, 16 PLAINTIFF PASADENA Plaintiff, TOURNAMENT OF ROSES 17 ASSOCIATION’S RESPONSE IN v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 18 MOTION TO DISMISS 19 CITY OF PASADENA, Hon. André Birotte, Jr. Date: May 14, 2021 20 Time: 10:00 am Defendant. Courtroom: 7B 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASADENA TOURNAMENT OF ROSES ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01051 Case 2:21-cv-01051-AB-JEM Document 39 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:1090 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 3 5 I. This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over This Active and Concrete Controversy .................................................................... 3 6 II. The Tournament’s Trademark, False Advertising, and Contract 7 Claims Are Sufficiently Pleaded .......................................................... 6 A. The Tournament Sufficiently Pleads Claims for 8 Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Association, False Endorsement, and False Designation 9 of Origin in Counts 3-5, 7, and 8 of the FAC ............................ 6 10 1. The City’s Arguments About Trademark Nominative Fair Use are Premature and Ignore 11 The City’s Use of the Tournament’s ROSE BOWL Mark to Create Consumer Confusion ............................. 9 12 a. The City Refers to the Tournament’s Rose Bowl Game Without Using the 13 Tournament’s ROSE BOWL Mark .................... 11 14 b. It Was Not Necessary for the City to Use the Tournament’s ROSE BOWL Mark at All in 15 the Post—Let Alone Twice ................................. 12 c. Based on the Overall Context of the City’s 16 Post, Consumers Could Mistakenly Believe that the Tournament Sponsors or Approves 17 of the Post ............................................................ 12 18 2. The City’s Arguments About the Artistic- Relevance Doctrine are Premature, Ignore that the 19 City’s Post Is Not an “Expressive Work,” and Ignore that the City’s Post Was Explicitly 20 Misleading as to Source ................................................ 14 B. The Tournament Sufficiently Pleads a Claim for False 21 Advertising in Count 6 of the FAC ......................................... 18 22 C. The Tournament Sufficiently Pleads a Claim for Breach of Contract Under California Law in Count 9 of the FAC ...... 21 23 III. To the Extent the Court Grants the Motion, the Tournament Requests Leave to Amend ................................................................. 24 24 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 24 25 26 27 28 i PASADENA TOURNAMENT OF ROSES ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01051 Case 2:21-cv-01051-AB-JEM Document 39 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:1091 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 3 Page(s) 4 Cases 5 1800 Get Thin, LLC v. Hiltzik, 6 No. CV11-00505, 2011 WL 3206486 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011) ...................... 12 7 Adaptive Mktg. LLC v. Girard Gibbs LLP, No. 09-04739, 2009 WL 8464168 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009) .............................. 13 8 9 Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 223 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 23 10 Aluminium v. Hunter Eng’g Co., 11 655 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................ 4, 5 12 Amaral v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 13 692 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................ 4, 5 14 AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 15 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) .................................................................. 7, 8, 9, 14 16 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 17 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 13 18 Architectural Mailboxes, LLC v. Epoch Design, LLC, No. 10-974, 2011 WL 1630809 (S.D. Cal. April 28, 2011) ............................... 13 19 20 Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp., 985 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................ 18, 19, 20 21 Basil v. New Razor & Tie Enters., LLC, 22 No. 17-8728, 2018 WL 3869480 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018).............................. 12 23 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp, 24 463 U.S. 60 (1983) ............................................................................................. 19 25 Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 26 724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 15 27 Caiz v. Roberts, 28 382 F. Supp. 3d 942 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................ 15 ii PASADENA TOURNAMENT OF ROSES ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01051 Case 2:21-cv-01051-AB-JEM Document 39 Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:1092 1 Capcom Co., Ltd. v. MKR Grp., Inc., 2 No. 08-0904, 2008 WL 4661479 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008) .............................. 12 3 Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub.c Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ........................................................................................... 19 4 5 Chaquico v. Freiberg, No. 17-cv-02423, 2017 WL 4805578 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017) ...................... 16 6 Clark v. America Online Inc., 7 No. CV-98-5650, 2000 WL 33535712 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2000) .................... 11 8 Dickinson v. Ryan Seacrest Enterprises, Inc., 9 No. CV 18-2260, 2018 WL 6112628 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) ......................... 15 10 Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, 11 No. 16-CV-2779, 2018 WL 2306733 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2018) ....................... 15 12 E.S.S. Ent. 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 13 547 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................. 15 14 In re Facebook Priv. Litig., 192 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................. 23 15 16 Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................ 14, 15, 16, 17 17 Hunt v. City of L.A., 18 638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 19 19 Jackson v. Netflix, Inc., 20 No. 20-CV-06354, 2020 WL 8028615 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2020) ........................ 9 21 Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lithera, Inc., 22 998 F. Supp. 2d 890 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................. 7, 8 23 MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 24 549 U.S. 118 (2007) ............................................................................................. 6 25 Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014) ............................................................................................. 6 26 27 Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, 795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 18 28 iii PASADENA TOURNAMENT OF ROSES ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01051 Case 2:21-cv-01051-AB-JEM Document 39 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:1093 1 New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., Inc., 2 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 10 3 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 11 4 5 Pomegranate Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sourcebooks, Inc., No. 19-cv-00119, 2019 WL 7476688 (D. Ore. Dec. 16, 2019) ......................... 15 6 powerlineman.com, LLC v. Kackson, 7 No. 07-879, 2007 WL 3479562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2007) ............................... 10 8 Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, 9 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 20 10 ProMex v. LLC Hernandez, 11 781 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................ 21, 23 12 Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney Co., 13 293 F. Supp. 3d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................... 14 14 Reflex Media, Inc. v. Pilgrim Studios, Inc., No. 18-2260, 2018 WL 6566561 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018) ............................. 15 15 16 Rodgers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) ........................................................................... 7, 14 17 Solofill, LLC, v. Rivera, 18 No. 17-02956, 2017 WL 5953105 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) .............................