Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Akanoc Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Akanoc Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 458|Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman
Akanoc's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the contributory trademark claim. This may give some indication of the arguments Akanoc made to the jury to avoid liability.
Akanoc's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the contributory trademark claim. This may give some indication of the arguments Akanoc made to the jury to avoid liability.

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Sep 01, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
164516.2-10562-002-8/20/2009
DEFENDANTS’ FRCP 50(a) MOTIONRE: PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTORYTRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIM– C 07-3952 JW
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES
David A. Gauntlett (SBN 96399)James A. Lowe (SBN 214383)Brian S. Edwards (SBN 166258)Christopher Lai (SBN 249425)18400 Von Karman, Suite 300Irvine, California 92612Telephone: (949) 553-1010Facsimile: (949) 553-2050info@gauntlettlaw.com  jal@gauntlettlaw.com bse@gauntlettlaw.com Attorneys for DefendantsAkanoc Solutions, Inc.,Managed Solutions Group, Inc.and Steve Chen
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A.,Plaintiff,vs.AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,Defendants.))))))))))))))))Case No.: C 07-3952 JWHon. James Ware
DEFENDANTS’ RULE 50(a) MOTION FORJUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAWREGARDING: CONTRIBUTORYTRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIM[Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)]
Trial Date: August 18, 2009Time: 9:00 a.m.Dept.: Courtroom 8, 4
th
Floor
Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document210 Filed08/20/09 Page1 of 20
 
 
164516.2-10562-002-8/20/2009
DEFENDANTS’ FRCP 50(a) MOTIONRE: PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTORYTRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIM– C 07-3952 JW
 
i12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 
I.
 
VUITTON FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SATISFY ELEMENTS OFITS CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIM...............................1
 
A.
 
Judgment As a Matter of Law Is Appropriate Under FRCP 50(a)........................1
 
B.
 
Vuitton Has Not Presented Evidence to Prove the Elements of Its Claim.............1
 
C.
 
Element 1 - No Evidence of Direct Trademark Infringement................................2
 
1.
 
No Evidence of Direct Infringers’ “Use in Commerce”...............................2
 
2.
 
The Lanham Act Does Not Apply to Direct Infringement ByForeign Nationals Outside the United States................................................5
 
3.
 
Jurisdiction Over Alleged Direct Infringers Is Lacking..............................7
 
4.
 
No Likelihood of Confusion............................................................................9
 
D.
 
Element 2 - No Evidence Defendants Induced or Directly Controlled andMonitored Infringement At Specific Websites.......................................................10
 
1.
 
Where Direct Infringer Sells a Product......................................................10
 
2.
 
Where Direct Infringer Sells a Service........................................................10
 
E.
 
No Evidence of Direct Control and Monitoring.....................................................11
 
F.
 
Willful Blindness Does Not Apply in Absence of Direct Control andMonitoring.................................................................................................................12
 
G.
 
Willful Blindness Not Proven At Trial....................................................................13
 
II.
 
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................15
 
Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document210 Filed08/20/09 Page2 of 20
 
 
164516.2-10562-002-8/20/2009
DEFENDANTS’ FRCP 50(a) MOTIONRE: PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTORYTRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIM– C 07-3952 JW
 
ii12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)
 
F
EDERAL
C
ASES
 
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc.,
 
414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005)............................................................................................................2
 Acme Valve & Fittings Co. v. Wayne,
 
386 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D. Tex. 1974)................................................................................................3
 Ballard v. Savage,
 
65 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995)...........................................................................................................9
 Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.,
 
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).......................................................................................................10
Custom Mfg. and Engineering, Inc. v. Midway Services
,
 
508 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007).....................................................................................................4, 9
 DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bloom,
 
315 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2003)...........................................................................................................5
 El-Hakem v. BJY Inc.,
 
415 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).........................................................................................................1
 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
 
279 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2002)...................................................................................................9, 10
Fare Deals Ltd. v. World Choice Travel.Com, Inc.
,
 
180 F.Supp.2d 678 (D. Md. 2001)..........................................................................................11, 12
Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.,
 
76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................14
Gator.Com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc.,
 
341 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003).........................................................................................................7
Golden v. Winjohn Taxi Corp.
,
 
311 F.3d 513 (2d Cir. 2002)............................................................................................................1
 Habeeba's Dance of the Arts, Ltd. v. Knoblauch,
 
430 F.Supp.2d 709 (S.D. Ohio 2006)............................................................................................11
 Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Services, Inc.,
 
955 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1992).................................................................................................13, 14
 International Cafe, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Cafe Int’l (U.S.A.), Inc
.,
 
252 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................6
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Surgical Techs., Inc
.,
 
285 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2002)...........................................................................................................4
Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document210 Filed08/20/09 Page3 of 20

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->