U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONINTERSERVE, INC., et al.,Plaintiffs,v.FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD,Defendant.____________________________________/
No. C09-5812 RS (PVT)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FORPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ANDGRANTING IN PART AND DENYINGIN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
I. INTRODUCTIONThe parties to this action have widely divergent views as to the nature of their priorrelationship and the legal consequences flowing from those interactions. What is not reasonablydisputable, though, is that between September of 2008 and November of 2009, the partiescollaborated in an attempt to bring to market a tablet computer, which they intended to call the“CrunchPad.” Then, shortly before the parties had planned to announce that the product wouldsoon be released, defendant Fusion Garage advised plaintiffs that it would proceed on its own, andmarket a tablet computer under the name “joojoo” instead.
Plaintiffs filed this action contending, in essence, that they are co-owners of the joojoo.They seek a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to sequester all proceeds it obtains from
Fusion Garage markets the product with the name in all lower case letters.
Case3:09-cv-05812-RS Document162 Filed08/24/10 Page1 of 16