Case 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Document 26 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:159 1 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Andrew W. Homer (State Bar No, 259852) 2 Tahir L. Boykins (State Bar No. 323441) 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 23rd Floor 3 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-6100 4 Facsimile: (310) 712-6199 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Michael J. Zinna (pro hac vice) 7 Whitney M. Smith (pro hac vice) 101 Park Avenue 8 New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 9 Facsimile: (212) 808-7897 [email protected] 10 [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Defendants Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Saks 12 Incorporated, d/b/a Saks Fifth Avenue, and Neiman Marcus Group Limited, LLC 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 NIRVANA L.L.C., a Washington Limited Case No. 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Liability Company, 17 Honorable John Arnold Kronstadt Plaintiff, 18 v. DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 19 MOTION AND MOTION TO MARK JACOBS INTERNATIONAL DISMISS 20 LL.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SAKS INCORPORATED, Date: June 10, 2019 21 d/b/a SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, a Time: 8:30 a.m. Tennessee Corporation; NEIMAN 22 MARCUS GROUP LIMITED, L.LC., a Place: Courtroom 10B Delaware Limited Liability Company; and 23 Does 1 through 10, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Document 26 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:160 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 10, 2019, or as soon thereafter as 3 possible, in the courtroom of the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, located at First 4 Street Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Courtroom 10B, Los Angeles, California 5 90012-4565, Defendants Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Saks Incorporated, d/b/a 6 Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus Group Limited, LLC, by and through their 7 attorneys, will move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 12(b)(6). This motion is made following the conference of counsel 9 pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on March 1, 2019. 10 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the included Memorandum of 11 Points and Authorities and Request for Judicial Notice; and upon such other 12 evidence or argument as may be presented to the Court at the time of the hearing. 13 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 14 15 DATED: March 8, 2019 By: /s/ Michael J. Zinna 16 Michael J. Zinna 17 Attorney for Defendants 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Document 26 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:161 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 4 4 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 8 5 A. LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................... 8 6 B. THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM SHOULD BE 7 DISMISSED ON THREE INDEPENDENT GROUNDS .................. 9 8 1. Plaintiff Fails to Properly Allege Ownership of the ‘166 9 Registration ................................................................................ 9 10 2. Plaintiff Has Not and Cannot Allege Facts to Support the 11 Validity of the ‘166 Registration Given the Varied First 12 Publication Dates of the ‘166 Registration’s Components ..... 12 13 3. Plaintiff Has Not and Cannot Plead Extrinsic Similarity 14 Between the ‘166 Registration and the Accused Products ...... 15 15 C. THE NON-COPYRIGHT CLAIMS ARE PREEMPTED ................ 16 16 1. Plaintiff’s Non-Copyright Claims Fall Within the Subject 17 Matter of Copyright ................................................................. 18 18 2. Plaintiff’s Asserted Rights Are Equivalent to Rights 19 Enumerated in the Copyright Act ............................................ 18 20 D. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PLEAD KEY 21 ELEMENTS OF ITS NON-COPYRIGHT CLAIMS ....................... 20 22 1. The California Common Law Trademark Infringement 23 Claim Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Admits 24 That It Is Not Using the X-Eye Smiley Face as a 25 Trademark ................................................................................ 21 26 2. The Claim for False Designation of Origin Under the 27 Lanham Act Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Fails 28 to Adequately Plead Likelihood of Confusion ........................ 22 i MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Document 26 Filed 03/08/19 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:162 1 3. The California Unfair Competition Claim Should Be 2 Dismissed Because Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead 3 Passing Off ............................................................................... 23 4 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 24 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Document 26 Filed 03/08/19 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:163 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Adobe Sys. Inc. v. A&S Elecs., Inc., No. C 15-2288 SBA, 2015 WL 13022288 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) ................ 23 5 Aquawood, LLC v. Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc., 6 No. 2:15-cv-05869-AB, 2016 WL 10576620 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2016) ......................................................................................................... 18, 23, 24 7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 8 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................... 9 9 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................... 9 10 Capcom Co. v. The MKR Group, 11 No. C 08-0904 RS, 2008 WL 4661479 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008) ...................... 17 12 Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 15 13 Cummings v. Soul Train Holdings LLC, 14 67 F. Supp. 3d 599, 606 ........................................................................................ 20 15 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ............................................................................................... 17 16 Endemol Entm’t B.V. v. Twentieth Television Inc., 17 No. CV 98-0608 ABC, 1998 WL 785300 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 1998) .................. 17 18 Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 1 19 Lasco Fittings, Inc. v. Lesso Am., Inc., 20 No. EDCV 13-02015-VAP, 2014 WL 12601016 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) ..................................................................................................................... 21 21 Laws v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., 22 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 17 23 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 1, 20 24 Lions Gate Entm’t Inc. v. TD Ameritrade Secs. Co., 25 170 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................... 18, 19, 24 26 Marcus v. ABC Signature Studios, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................ 9, 15 27 Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 28 844 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................. 1 iii MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:18-cv-10743-JAK-SK Document 26 Filed 03/08/19 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:164 1 Motta v. Samuel Weiser, Inc., 768 F.2d 481 (1st Cir. 1985) ................................................................................ 11 2 Nat’l Bus. Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Credit Ed. & Consulting, Inc., 3 299 F. App’x 509 (6th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 20 4 Olander Enters. Inc. v. Spencer Gifts, LLC, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................... passim 5 Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 6 572 U.S. 663 (2014) ............................................................................................. 10 7 Prince v. Univ. Music Corp., No. 2:09-cv-1459-FMC-FFMX, 2009 WL 10672282 (C.D. Cal. 8 June 18, 2009) ....................................................................................................... 20 9 Salt Optics, Inc. v. Jand, Inc., No. SACV 10-0828, 2010 WL 4961702 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) ................... 20 10 Silas v. Home Box Office, Inc., 11 201 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................ 9, 15 12 Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 23 13 Tang v. Hwang, 14 799 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Pa. 1992) ......................................................................... 11 15 Touchpoint Commc’ns, LLC v. Dentalfone, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-05240-JRC, 2015 WL 5918400 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 16 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 20 17 United Fabrics Int’l v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2010) ................. 13 18 Varsity News Network, Inc. v. Carty Web Strategies, Inc., No. CV 17-2574 PSG, 2017 WL 7156278