UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. :

Mastercard Int'l Inc. v. Nader Primary Comm., Inc WL , 2004 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 3644 (2004)

Case 4:18-cv HSG Document 46 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF OF CALIFORNIA

Docket No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEBCELEB, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Crazy Dog T-Shirts, Inc. ( Plaintiff ) initiated this action on December 11,

United States District Court Central District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case 2:13-cv MJP Document 34 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case4:12-cv PJH Document22-2 Filed07/23/12 Page1 of 8. Exhibit B

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) BACKGROUND

DOC#:- -:-:-+--+.~- I

Case3:10-cv JSW Document49 Filed03/02/12 Page1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States District Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted: May 4, 2018 Decided: December 11, 2018) Docket No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:09-cv MCE -KJN Document 50 Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court Central District of California Western Division

: Plaintiff, : : : This action arises out of Defendants alleged misuse of recordings of Plaintiff Jeremiah

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL. CASE NO.: CV SJO (JPRx) DATE: December 12, 2014

Trademark Laws: New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the court is Defendant s Motion to Dismiss

Case 4:18-cv PJH Document 37 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:12-cv CRB Document22 Filed10/26/12 Page1 of 10

Case 3:15-cv SB Document 56 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the Court is Twin City Fire Insurance Company s ( Twin City ) Motion for

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v.

Case 1:12-cv WJM-KMT Document 64 Filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No GORDON ROY PARKER, Appellant GOOGLE, INC.; JOHN DOES # 1-50,000

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION

Case 2:16-cv R-RAO Document 98 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1230

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:14-cv ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Case 3:17-cv RS Document 39 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 5

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P G. CRAIG CABA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION

Case 2:06-cv JCC Document 51 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv MMD-VPC Document 233 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff, Defendants.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 8:14-cv VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv CMA Document 14 Filed 05/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:16-cv LB Document 24 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 12

(Argued: February 19, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2015)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [34, 39]

Trademark Law Developments Mark S. Graham, Esq. The Graham Law Firm, PLLC Knoxville, TN

EXHIBIT E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:16-cv KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ORDER

REVISED APRIL 26, 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No No TMI INC, Plaintiff-Appellee

PlainSite. Legal Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV042-P-B

Case 1:09-cv JFK-GWG Document 159 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 5:14-cv FB Document 13 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

United States Court of Appeals

"'031 Patent"), and alleging claims of copyright infringement. (Compl. at 5).^ Plaintiff filed its

Plaintiff Betty, Inc. ( Betty ), brings this action asserting copyright infringement and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 3:16-cv JST Document 56 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 12-cv HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case5:12-cv EJD Document131 Filed05/05/14 Page1 of 8

Case3:12-cv CRB Document52 Filed04/05/13 Page1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 18 Filed: 10/03/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:55

Defendants 2K Games, Inc., and Take-Two Interactive Software (collectively, Take Two or

Case 1:14-cv WYD-MEH Document 26 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

United States Court of Appeals

United States District Court

Case3:14-cv MEJ Document39 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION

Case 1:04-cv RJS Document 90 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 7

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit GRAPHIC CONTROLS CORPORATION, UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.,

Case 2:15-cv MWF-KS Document 112 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1713 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

Case 3:17-cv JCH Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Case No.

Transcription:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, COMICMIX LLC; GLENN HAUMAN; DAVID JERROLD FRIEDMAN a/k/a JDAVID GERROLD; and TY TEMPLETON, Defendants. Case No.: 1-CV--JLS (BGS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF No. ) Presently before the Court is Defendants Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, ( MJP, ECF No. ). Also before the Court is Plaintiff s Response in Opposition to the Motion, ( Opp n, ECF No. 0), and Defendants Reply in Support of the Motion, ( Reply, ECF No. ). The Court held oral argument on the motion on April 1, 01. After considering the Parties arguments and the law, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND Due to the multiple orders in this case that adequately summarize the factual 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 background, the Court will not repeat the factual background here. 1 (See ECF No. 1, at.) As to the procedural background, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants for: (I) copyright infringement; (II) trademark infringement; and (III) unfair competition. ( Compl., ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. (ECF No..) The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants Motion. ( First MTD Order, ECF No..) Specifically, the Court denied Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s claim of copyright infringement (Count I) and granted Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition (Counts II and III). (Id. at 0.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, ( FAC, ECF No. ). Defendants again moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the Court denied the motion. ( Second MTD Order, ECF No. 1.) Defendants then filed the present Motion seeking judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff s trademark and unfair competition claims. LEGAL STANDARD Any party may move for judgment on the pleadings [a]fter the pleadings are closed but early enough not to delay trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings attacks the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, F.d 1, 1 (d Cir. 001). The Court must construe all material allegations of the non-moving party as contained in the pleadings as true, and [construe] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving] party. Doyle v. Raley s Inc., 1 F.d 1, 1 (th Cir. 1). Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., F.d 1, (th Cir. ). Analysis under Rule 1(c) is substantially identical to 1 The Court will continue to refer to Defendants book, Oh! The Places You ll Boldly Go!, as Boldly and will refer to Plaintiff s book, Oh! The Places You ll Go!, as Go! Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 analysis under Rule 1(b)() because, under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy. Chavez v. United States, F.d 1, 1 (th Cir. 01). ANALYSIS Defendants base their Motion on the Ninth Circuit opinion Twentieth Century Fox Television a Division of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Empire Distribution, Inc., F.d (th Cir. 01), which was issued on November 1, 01 and interprets and applies the test from Rogers v. Grimaldi, F.d. (d Cir. 1). I. Background In their first motion to dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiff s trademark claims should be dismissed because Boldly merits First Amendment protection under Rogers v. Grimaldi. Under the Rogers two-prong test, the title of an expressive work does not violate the Lanham Act unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work. Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., F.d, 0 (th Cir. 00) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rogers, F.d at ). This test insulates from restriction titles with at least minimal artistic relevance that are ambiguous or only implicitly misleading but leaves vulnerable to claims of deception titles that are explicitly misleading as to source or content, or that have no artistic relevance at all. Rogers, F.d at 00. The first Rogers prong requires that Defendants use of Plaintiff s mark be relevant to the underlying work. If this prong is satisfied, the second prong dictates that the use may not explicitly mislead consumers about the source or content of the work. In their prior motion, Defendants argued Boldly s use of Go! s title and fonts and illustrations that recall Dr. Seuss s style are directly relevant to a creative work that addresses the relationship between Go! and other Dr. Seuss works and the Star Trek universe. (ECF No. -1, at.) As to the second prong, Defendants argued there is nothing misleading about Boldly. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff pointed to what it deemed the most relevant

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 portion of Rogers footnote. This footnote states that the outlined limiting construction would not apply to misleading titles that are confusingly similar to other titles. The public interest in sparing consumers this type of confusion outweighs the slight public interest in permitting authors to use such titles. Rogers, F.d at n.. In its order on the motion to dismiss, this Court analyzed the Rogers test. As to the first prong, it held there is no question that Defendants invocation of Plaintiff s alleged trademarks is relevant to Boldly s artistic purpose. (First MTD Order 1.) As to the second prong, the Court held that Boldly does not explicitly mislead as to its source or content. (Id.) The Court then referenced the exception in footnote. (Id. at 1.) The Court stated that the Ninth Circuit had not directly addressed this exception, but other district courts have determined that the exception is applicable. The Court therefore held it would not dismiss Plaintiff s trademark claims on First Amendment grounds under Rogers. (Id. at 1.) Defendants now argue the Rogers footnote has been disavowed by the Ninth Circuit in Empire Distribution and Boldly s use of Plaintiff s pled trademark claims merits First Amendment protection under both prongs of the Rogers test. (MJP.) II. Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, Inc. Twentieth Century Fox Television a Division of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Empire Distribution, Inc., F.d (th Cir. 01) involved a dispute between Empire Distribution ( Empire ), the well-known record label, and Twentieth Century Fox Television and Fox Broadcasting Company ( Fox ). Fox premiered a television show titled Empire, which portrays a fictional music label named Empire Enterprises. Fox promoted the show and the music from the show through performances and goods bearing the show s Empire brand. Empire sent Fox a claim letter demanding Fox stop using the Empire trademark. Fox filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Empire show and its associated music releases do not violate Empire Distribution s trademark rights under either the Lanham Act or California law. Empire, F.d at. Fox moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, and Empire appealed.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 In analyzing the claim, the Ninth Circuit noted that when the allegedly infringing use is the title of an expressive work, it applies the Rogers test rather than the likelihoodof-confusion test. Id. at. Expressive works are treated differently from other covered works because (1) they implicate the First Amendment right of free speech, which must be balanced against the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion; and () consumers are less likely to mistake the use of someone else s mark in an expressive work for a sign of association, authorship, or endorsement. Id. Accordingly, the title of an expressive work does not violate the Lanham Act unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work. Id. (quoting Rogers, F.d at ). The Ninth Circuit first determined whether the Rogers test applied to the Empire mark. Empire had argued that the limiting construction from Rogers would not apply due to footnote. The Ninth Circuit stated that the footnote had only ever been cited once by an appellate court, and even then the Second Circuit had rejected its applicability. Id. at (citing Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ g Grp., Inc., F.d 0 (d Cir. 1)). The Ninth Circuit stated [t]he exception the footnote suggests may be illadvised or unnecessary because identifying confusingly similar titles has the potential to duplicate either the likelihood-of-confusion test or the second prong of Rogers and conflicts with our precedents, which dictate that we apply the Rogers test in [Lanham Act] (a) cases involving expressive works. Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., F.d 1, (th Cir. 01)). In sum, the court found the first Rogers prong is satisfied because it could not say that Fox s use of the Empire mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever. Id. at. The court noted there is no requirement that the junior work refer to the senior work, i.e., the word Empire did not need to refer to Empire Distribution. Id. The court also found the second prong is satisfied because Fox s show contains no overt claims or explicit references to Empire Distribution and is not explicitly

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 misleading. Id. The court thus affirmed the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Fox for the trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and false advertising claims. III. Discussion The Court now evaluates Plaintiff s trademark claims under the Rogers test as it has been interpreted by the Ninth Circuit. A. First Rogers Prong As to the first Rogers prong, only the use of a trademark with no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever does not merit First Amendment protection. In other words, the level of relevance merely must be above zero. E.S.S. Entm t 000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., F.d, 10 (th Cir. 00). A mark that has no meaning beyond its source-identifying function is more likely to be used in a way that has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, [citation] because the work may be merely borrow[ing] another s property to get attention, [citation]. Id. at (quoting Mattel, F.d at 01 0; and citing Dr. Seuss Ents., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., F.d 1, 1 (th Cir. 1)). This Court previously found that Defendants invocation of Plaintiff s alleged trademarks is relevant to Boldly s artistic purpose. (First MTD Order 1.) Plaintiff argues the title of Boldly was not chosen for artistically relevant reasons but was chosen to borrow from the rights holder or avoid the drudgery of creating something fresh. (Opp n 1 (citing Empire, F.d at and Penguin, F.d at 1).) The Court disagrees. As mentioned above, the artistic relevance test is a low bar the level must merely be above zero. Brown, F.d at 1. It cannot be said that the title of Boldly is not at all relevant to the content of the book. As well-put by the court in CI Games S.A. v. Destination Films, No. :1-cv-1-SVW-JC, 01 WL (C.D. Cal. Oct., 01): It is clear to the Court that the artistic relevance prong of the Rogers test is meant to ensure that the title in question uses the potential trademark to express or describe its own content rather than merely to attract notoriety using a trademark in its title that is

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 irrelevant to the underlying work. Id. at *. This Court agrees and finds the title of Boldly, while obviously also referring to and using the title of Go!, describes and is relevant to its own content. This prong is met. B. Second Rogers Prong The second prong of the Rogers test requires a junior user to show that its work does not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work. Mattell, F.d at 0. It is well established that the use of a mark alone is not enough to satisfy this prong of the Rogers test. Brown, F.d at 1. The question is whether there was an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement that caused... consumer confusion. Id. (quoting Rogers, F.d at 01). The Ninth Circuit has held that even if a party produces survey evidence that shows consumers believed that the trademark owner endorsed the allegedly infringing work, this would not be enough to support a claim of explicit misleading. Id. at 1. To be relevant, evidence must relate to the nature of the behavior of the identifying material s user, not the impact of the use. Id. at 1. For example, if a party produced evidence of statements made in materials accompanying the allegedly infringing work that explicitly mislead consumers, this may be sufficient. Id. Here, if Defendants had included a leaflet or a statement within Boldly that stated Plaintiff endorsed or was involved in the production of Boldly, this may be sufficient. There is no such statement, in fact, the opposite is true. Boldly s copyright page states that [t]his is a work of parody, and is not associated with or endorsed by CBS Studios or Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P., and includes the following text: Copyright Disclaimer under section of the Copyright Act 1, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, research, and parody. (MJP.) Although the effectiveness of these disclaimers is disputed by Plaintiff, what cannot be disputed is that there is no statement in Boldly to the contrary, i.e., that the work is associated with or endorsed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have taken more than just the mark because they used the title Oh! The Places You ll Go! and copied the lettering and font of the title and

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 many of the illustrated characters. (Opp n 1.) Indeed, this Court has found that [t]he look of the lettering is unquestionably identical on both books, down to the shape of the exclamation point. (Second MTD Order 1.) But, Defendants use of the text and design of Go! s title is not enough to be an explicit misstatement. See Rogers, F.d at (giving as examples of explicit endorsement the phrases an authorized biography or Jane Fonda s Workout ); see also Brown, F.d at 1 ( The risk of misunderstanding, not engendered by any explicit indication on the face of the [work], is so outweighed by the interest in artistic expression as to preclude application of the [Lanham] Act. (quoting ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ g, Inc., F.d 1 (th Cir. 00))). Plaintiff has not pointed to, and is not able to point to, any evidence that the title of Boldly explicitly misleads as to the source of the work, thus, the second prong of Rogers is satisfied. Because both Rogers prongs are satisfied, Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff s trademark claims. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS With this finding, the Court now clarifies which claims are to be dismissed. As noted in the prior order, Plaintiff has pled trademark rights in the title of, fonts on and within, and illustrations within Go!. The Court stated it was unnecessary to determine at that time whether Plaintiff may claim trademark rights in the fonts used on covers of books other than Go! or the font used within Go!. (Second MTD Order 1.) The Court determined the title Go! is a protectable trademark and analyzed Defendants use of Go! s title (the words of the title and the title s design on the book covers). (Id.) The Court also found it could not say at the motion to dismiss stage that Plaintiff s asserted general illustration style is a protectable trademark but it did not find that the illustrations within Go! are precluded from trademark protection. (Id. at 1.) Therefore, the Court has not held whether or not Plaintiff has protectable trademark rights in the font and illustration style of Go! and the Court has only analyzed the title of Go! as it appears on the cover of the book. In this order, the Court is only finding that the title of Boldly does not violate the Lanham Act. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion for Judgment on the

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Pleadings as to Counts II and III of the First Amended Complaint as they relate to the title of Boldly. Further, as the Court stated previously, if claims relying on the exact same factual conduct are validly dismissed under the Lanham Act, they should also be dismissed under California Unfair Competition law. (First MTD Order 1 (citing E.S.S. Entm t, F.d at ).) Because Plaintiff s unfair competition claims are based on the same factual conduct as its trademark claims, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count IV of the First Amended Complaint as it relates to the title of Boldly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 1, 01