Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01225/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01225-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendants are Maurice Kanbar, MK Enterprises, Rollit, LLC, and Rex Products (hereinafter

collectively referred to in the singular as "Kanbar"). 

2

 Kanbar objects to the motion citing untimeliness and claiming 3M has not sufficiently met and

conferred as required by L-R 37.1. The Court does not find merit to either objection. Further, Defendant asks

the Court to decide the location of the depositions; however, this request was not timely raised and will not be

addressed at this time. 

*E-filed 6/19/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

3M COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAURICE KANBAR, MK ENTERPRISES,

INC., ROLLIT, LLC, and REX PRODUCTS,

INC.

Defendants. /

Case No. C06-01225 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE

ORDER ON 30(b)(6) TOPICS

Re: Docket No. 103

3M Company ("3M") sues over the alleged infringement of its "POST-IT" and Canary

Yellow trademarks associated with its sticky note product. Defendants, producers of ROLLIT

(a dispenser of sticky note paper on a roll), counterclaim to invalidate 3M's trademarks.1

 

During discovery, Kanbar served a 30(b)(6) deposition notice on 3M that included forty-one

topics. 3M now moves for a protective order on fifteen of the topics, requesting either

modification or cancellation of each.2

 The standard for deciding a protective order on a

30(b)(6) topic is whether the moving party has presented "good cause". Gray v. First Winthrop

Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). The order that follows has been shaped in part by

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 (Adkisson Decl., Ex. 2). 

4

 Given the documents Kanbar already has, the Court remains unclear as to why it thinks a 3M

employee will be able to supplement this information beyond providing a list of other countries, if any, that have

rejected the trademark. If it is merely a list that Defendant seeks, then this seems to be information best

obtained via interrogatory or request for production. Nevertheless, Defendant has discretion over how it pursues

discovery, so long as the means are permissible. 

2

the remaining twenty-six topics for which no protective orders have been sought. In the Court's

view, those other topics cover much of the same ground as the fifteen under review.3

SECTION I: Topics 9 and 26

3M requests cancellation of the following two topics because it believes they seek

information that is either irrelevant and inadmissible or privileged. 

Topic 9 requests a 3M witness to testify to "the rejection of the registration of Canary

Yellow (or any color yellow) in connection with a sticky note product in any country or

territory." In relation to this topic, Kanbar has already been provided with the Australian

trademark office’s analysis, notes and findings pertaining to its rejection of the Canary Yellow

trademark. 3M points to a Fifth Circuit case that held trademark decisions of foreign courts are

irrelevant and inadmissible in U.S. courts and argues that Topic 9 falls into this category. Fuji

Photo Film Co., Inc. v. Shinohara Shoji Kabushiki Kaisha, 754 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Defendant counters by pointing to a Ninth Circuit case which holds that discoverable

information need only lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it need not be admissible in

and of itself. Olympic Refining Co. v. Carter, 332 F2d 260 (9th Cir. 1964). According to

Defendant, 3M's testimony pertaining to rejection decisions in foreign courts would lead

Defendant to the records associated with those cases. This line of questioning is permissible

because portions of those records may still be admissible, even if the conclusions of the foreign

courts are inadmissible.4

 Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a protective order as to Topic 9 is

DENIED.

Topic 26 is about "3M’s policy of enforcement of its trademark rights, including but not

limited to any policy to sue any Person who introduces a product with the suffix 'IT' and/or

yellow shade sticky note." Plaintiff has agreed to provide information responsive to this topic in

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the form of an interrogatory, but Defendant continues to seek the information through a 30(b)(6) 

deposition. 3M's request for a protective order here rests with its belief that nearly all

information covered by this category falls under the attorney-client privilege or the work

product doctrine. However, Kanbar indicates that 3M has already produced documents

pertaining to trademark policies and therefore, all information in this category cannot be

privileged. Further, Defendant argues that 3M should have to make a specific objection or

showing of privilege at the deposition on a question-by-question basis. The Court agrees with

Defendant's position. Accordingly, the motion for a protective order on Topic 26 is DENIED. 

SECTION II: Topics 15, 16, 20 and 37

Plaintiff moves for a protective order cancelling these next four topics, arguing they call

for legal conclusions and would be more appropriate as contention interrogatories. In support,

Plaintiff cites McCormick-Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., 134 F.R.D. 275 (N.D. Cal.

1991), where the court favored answering legal conclusions through contention-style

interrogatories, rather than through a deposition, which would necessitate a lecture on

intellectual property law for testifying employees. Kanbar does not object to the legal basis

underlying Plaintiff's arguments. However, Defendant argues that the deposition topics are

appropriate because the information sought is fact-based and does not call for legal conclusions. 

Topics 15, 16,and 20 each inquire about support for the allegations that Defendant's

product infringes the 3M marks. Specifically, Topic 15 seeks testimony concerning "the

allegation that Defendants’ product is identical to products 3M sells under the POST-IT

trademark." Topic 16 similarly requests information concerning the allegation that Kanbar's

"sticky notes are a shade of yellow confusingly similar to 3M's Canary Yellow" trademark. And

finally, Topic 20 asks about "any blurring, dilution or tarnishment of 3M’s mark from

Defendants’ product." (emphasis added by the Court in each). The Court finds that, in these

circumstances, topics containing the terms “identical,” “confusingly similar,” and “blurring,

dilution and tarnishment” are, in effect, seeking legal conclusions that should not form the basis

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 Topic 22: "the acceptable pantone color range ... permitted by (a) way of settlement agreements

between 3M and any Person or (b) to licensees." 

6

 Topic 10: "the commercial advantages of Canary Yellow and/or yellow sticky note products." 

 Topic 23: "the commercial demand for yellow sticky notes, including any studies or surveys

conducted by 3M (or any other person) concerning the color yellow."

 Topic 34: "the competitive need for yellow colored sticky note products." 

4

for 30(b)(6) deposition topics. Additionally, the areas covered by these topics are substantially

covered by many of the uncontested twenty-six topics. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the

motion for the protective order with respect to Topics 15, 16, and 20. Plaintiff is further

ORDERED to answer within fifteen (15) calendar days of service, should Defendant propound

focused contention interrogatories on these topics. 

Topic 37 requests that a witness be prepared to testify "concerning the pantone range for

yellow-colored products which 3M asserts are likely to cause confusion." 3M contends that this

topic should be explored through a contention interrogatory because it calls for expert testimony

and involves legal analysis. Further, Plaintiff states that, as currently written, this topic is

duplicative of Topic 22.5

 Kanbar explains that it was not redundant because Topic 22 covers

settlement agreements and Topic 37 relates to assertions made by 3M other than in the context

of settlement agreements. The Court agrees with Plaintiff only as to its argument that the topic

is redundant. A plain reading of the language does not implicate a legal conclusion. Thus, the

motion for a protective order on Topic 37 is GRANTED and the topic is MODIFIED to

statements made by 3M to third parties (other than in the settlement discussion context)

pertaining to the pantone range for yellow-colored products which 3M asserts are likely to

cause confusion. 

SECTION III: Topics 1, 10, 23, 27, 32-25 and 37

3M says the final nine topics are unduly burdensome. 

Topics 10, 23, and 34 6

 generally relate to the commercial advantages of Canary Yellow

or yellow colored sticky notes. 3M makes no objection to the topics as they are written. 

During meet and confer, Plaintiff became concerned that Defendant intended to broaden these

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

topics beyond what 3M deemed the plain language of the topic. Plaintiff here seeks assurance

that the scope of these topics is limited to their plain meaning. However, it is impossible for the

Court to decide in a vacuum the exact parameters of the topics. Accordingly, the ruling on the

motion must be based on the language of the topics as they are written. The Court views the

plain reading of the language as unobjectionable and DENIES the motion for Topics 10, 23, and

34. 

Similarly, 3M presents no objection to Topic 13 as written. This one pertains to the

"discovery of the ROLLIT product." Again, 3M only raises concerns as to Kanbar’s

“broadening” of the topic in meet and confer. At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed to prepare a

witness on the issue of competitive testing of Defendant's product, even though this is not a

subject embraced by Topic 13. Thus, the Court DENIES the motion for a protective order and

further ORDERS Plaintiff to have a witness prepared to testify to competitive testing of the

ROLLIT product. 

Topic 27 deals with "3M's litigation against any Person using a product with the suffix

'IT' and/or yellow shade sticky note." Plaintiff seeks cancellation because it feels the scope of

litigation history for both trademarks was too expansive in both subject matter and with respect

to time. According to Plaintiff, litigation on the Canary Yellow trademark began in the late

1990's and there have been between twelve and thirty cases. The POST-IT trademark would

likely encompass twenty-five years of litigation with potentially hundreds of associated cases. 

Combined with the breadth of the term "litigation," 3M is rightfully concerned by the burden

associated with preparing a witness under this topic. In response to these arguments, Kanbar

explained that it was most concerned with the who, what and why aspects of the litigation, as

well as the basic resolution of those cases. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for a

protective order on Topic 27 and MODIFIES the topic to the name of the court, the action

number, the parties involved, the substance of the dispute and the outcome, for all of 3M's

litigation against any Person using a product with the suffix “IT” and/or yellow shade

sticky note. 

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

In Topic 32, Kanbar wants a 3M witness to testify "concerning its Highland brand." 3M

objects because of the scope of the subject matter and the timespan. Plaintiff requests

modification of the topic to "the color, quality and volume of sales associated with 3M’s

Highland brand sticky notes for the last five years." Kanbar responds that the five years

timeframe is far too limited because the Highland brand has been on the market for roughly

fifteen years. Further, Kanbar explains that "concerning" encompasses only basic information,

such as development, shades of color used, quality, and complaints associated with the brand. 

The Court finds that under these circumstances, the fifteen year timeframe is not unduly

burdensome, but the scope "concerning its Highland brand" is. The motion for the protective

order is GRANTED, and the topic is MODIFIED to the color shades, quality, sales, evidence

of brand confusion, and background of the Highland brand. 

The final three topics, Topics 1, 33, and 35, each request information from the entire

product lifespan of the sticky note. 3M raises concerns in each about the burdensomeness of

this timeframe, which would include twenty-five years worth of information. It requests that

the topics be narrowed to information from the past five years. Kanbar says that five years is

insufficient to show long-term permissive use of the trademarks, an element essential to its

counterclaim. Because the Court finds some merit to each of these arguments, the topics will

each be modified to include only the previous ten years. 

Topic 1 is about "the quality of its sticky note products, including any 3M products sold

by and/or licensed to any other Person." At the hearing, the parties reached an understanding to

exclude from this topic 3M's POST-IT brand product. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the

motion and MODIFIES the request to the quality of its sticky note products (excluding the

POST-IT product), including any 3M products sold by and/or licensed to any other

Person for the previous ten years.

In a nearly identical situation, the parties agreed at the hearing with respect to Topic 33

that it could be limited to 3M's private label practice. This topic originally pertained to "all

shades of yellow used by Plaintiff for its various sticky note products." The Court therefore

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

GRANTS the motion for Topic 33 and MODIFIES it to all shades of yellow used by Plaintiff

in its private label practice for the past ten years. 

The dispute over the final topic, Topic 35, relates to timeframe only. Based on the

aforementioned reasoning, the Court GRANTS the motion for a protective order and

MODIFIES the request to the various shades of yellow in use by any competitor selling

sticky note products for the past ten years. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/19/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

John Cameron Adkisson jca@fr.com, mla@fr.com 

Ann N. Cathcart Chaplin cathcartchaplin@fr.com, lindstedt@fr.com 

Michelle Lee Landry mlandry@kanbar.com 

Joel D. Leviton leviton@fr.com, lindner@fr.com 

David James Miclean miclean@fr.com, arceo@fr.com 

Kevin H. Rhodes krhodes@mmm.com 

A courtesy copy will be delivered to (Counsel is reminded to sign up for E-filing): 

Michael L. Gannon 

Office of Intellectual Property Counsel

3M Center

P. O. Box 33427

St. Paul, MN 55133-3427

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up for efiling.

Dated: 6/19/07 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 146 Filed 06/19/07 Page 8 of 8