Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07028/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOTSAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC., dba

NOLAND’S ON THE WHARF and

SHORELINE SURF SHOP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE

AND VISITORS BUREAU,

Defendant /

No. C 06-07028 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER

VENUE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO

TRANSFER VENUE; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau’s

(“Bureau”) motion to dismiss the above-titled action for improper venue, pursuant to Rule

12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively, to transfer the action to

the Central District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff Flotsam of

California, Inc. (“Flotsam”) has filed opposition, to which the Bureau has replied. Having

considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

deems the motion appropriate for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled

for February 2, 2007, and rules as follows:

1. Contrary to the Bureau’s argument, venue is proper in the Northern District

because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Flotsam’s claims for declaratory relief

as to non-infringement, unfair competition, and for cancellation of the Bureau’s marks

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 18 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The Bureau, in the alternative, requests the action be transferred to a “neutral”

district, specifically, the Southern District of California or the Eastern District of California,

Fresno Division. (See Def.’s Mot. at 5:12-13.) The Bureau fails, however, to show that

venue would be proper in either such district, or that transfer thereto would be more

convenient to the parties and witnesses.

2

occurred herein. Specifically, Flotsam’s sales of T-shirts with the phrase “Surf City Santa

Cruz California USA,” the conduct the Bureau has asserted infringes its marks, occurred in

the Northern District, (see Compl. ¶¶ 12-13), and Flotsam alleges its conduct is not

infringing because, inter alia, the Bureau lacks valid rights to the trademark “Surf City USA”

in light of the prior use in commerce of the “Surf City” mark by individuals and entities

located in the Northern District, (see Compl. ¶¶ 5-7). See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

(providing venue in federal-question case is proper in district where “substantial part of the

events” giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred); Spiegelberg v. Collegiate Licensing Co.,

402 F. Supp. 2d 786, 790 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (holding venue proper, for purposes of claim

seeking declaration of non-infringement as to defendant’s trademarks, in district where

plaintiff sold allegedly infringing products); cf. United States Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer

Co., 694 F. 2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding venue proper, for purposes of claim

seeking declaration of non-infringement as to defendant’s patent, in district where alleged

infringement occurred).

2. The Bureau has failed to make a “strong showing of inconvenience to warrant

upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum,” see Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison

Co., 805 F. 2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986), and, consequently, is not entitled to an order

transferring the action, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, to the Central

District of California.1

 Contrary to the Bureau’s argument, “all of the significant events

underlying Flotsam’s claims,” (see Def.’s Mot. at 15:8-9), have not occurred in the Central

District, as discussed above. Further, for the reasons stated by Flotsam, evidence and

witnesses relevant to the issue of whether Flotsam has infringed a valid mark appear to be

located predominately in the Northern District; at a minimum, the Bureau has not shown to

the contrary.

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 18 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss for improper venue, or,

alternatively, to transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 18 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 3