Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06149/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06149-2/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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVA WINES, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

ADLER FELS WINERY LLC, SAAL

BROWN, INC. dba PACIFIC LICENSING,

GARY SAAL, TOM KELLY STUDIOS, INC.

and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 06-06149 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Defendants’ Objections to the

Declarations of Robert Holder, Erick C.

Howard, William Reading, and Anna

Strasberg in Support of Plaintiff’s

Application for Temporary Restraining

Order

Plaintiff applied ex parte in this court for a temporary restraining order and moved for a

preliminary injunction. In support of its application and motion, plaintiff filed declarations from

Robert Holder, Erick C. Howard, William Reading, and Anna Strasberg. Defendants filed written

objections to these declarations. Having considered defendants’ objections, the court rules as

follows.

I. Holder Declaration

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “In 1987, Nova entered . . .” in Paragraph 2

of the Holder Declaration are OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “It is my understanding that Marilyn

Monroe, LLC . . .” in Paragraph 2 of the Holder Declaration are SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “Nova has had an exclusive license . . .” in

Paragraph 2 of the Holder Declaration are SUSTAINED.

Case 3:06-cv-06149-MHP Document 61 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “Under the terms of the Monroe

Agreement . . .” in Paragraph 2 of the Holder Declaration are SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “The Monroe Agreement has been renewed

. . .” in Paragraph 2 of the Holder Declaration are OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “As the exclusive licensee of the Monroe

Estate . . .” in Paragraph 2 of the Holder Declaration is SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 3 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 4 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 5 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 6 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statement in Paragraph 8 of the Holder Declaration are

SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the statement in Paragraph 9 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 10 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statement in Paragraph 11 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statement in Paragraph 12 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 13 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statement in Paragraph 14 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Case 3:06-cv-06149-MHP Document 61 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 15 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 16 of the Holder Declaration are

OVERRULED.

II. Howard Declaration

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 1 of the Howard Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 2 of the Howard Declaration are

OVERRULED.

III. Reading Declaration

Defendants’ objections to the statement “As national sales agent for Marilyn Wines, ABG is

aware of Nova’s exclusive license with Marilyn Monroe LLC (‘Monroe Estate’).” in Paragraph 2 of

the Reading Declaration are SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “In fact, for the seventeen years . . .” in

Paragraph 2 of the Reading Declaration are OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “In July of this year . . .” in Paragraph 3 of

the Reading Declaration are OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “When I heard that Adler Fels . . .” in

Paragraph 3 of the Reading Declaration are OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the sentence beginning “Based on Mr. Lindsay’s comments . . .” in

Paragraph 3 of the Reading Declaration are SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 4 of the Reading Declaration are

SUSTAINED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 5 of the Reading Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Case 3:06-cv-06149-MHP Document 61 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 6 of the Reading Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 7 of the Reading Declaration are

OVERRULED.

IV. Strasberg Declaration

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 1 of the Strasberg Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 2 of the Strasberg Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 3 of the Strasberg Declaration are

OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections to the statements in Paragraph 4 of the Strasberg Declaration are

OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-06149-MHP Document 61 Filed 12/28/06 Page 4 of 5
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

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-06149-MHP Document 61 Filed 12/28/06 Page 5 of 5