Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00889/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00889-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brice Hotel, Inc., an Ohio corporation;

and Jui Jer Lin, an individual, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-0889-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion to transfer venue of this action to the Southern District

of Ohio, Eastern Division. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to the motion

(Doc. 7). The Court enters this Order on Defendants' motion to transfer venue. 

Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging claims for breach of contract, federal trademark

infringement, and unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), and related common law and statutory causes of

action. This action arises from Defendants' alleged unauthorized use of Plaintiff's trade

name, trademarks, service marks, logos, and other identifying symbols, in violation of

Plaintiff's federal and common law trademark rights. The Court's jurisdiction has been

invoked, inter alia, based on federal question and diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona with its headquarters in

Phoenix, Arizona. Defendant Brice Hotel, Inc., is an Ohio corporation with its principal

Case 2:05-cv-00889-MHM Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 6
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 -

place of business in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. Defendant Jui Jer Lin is a resident

and citizen of Columbus, Ohio. The City of Columbus, Ohio, is located within the Southern

District of Ohio, Eastern Division. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue in a civil action in which jurisdiction is not founded

solely on diversity of citizenship generally may be brought in (1) a judicial district where any

defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial

part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which

any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be

brought. 

Title 28, United States Code, section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action

to any other district or division where it might have been brought." The purpose of §

1404(a) is to "'prevent the waste of time, energy, and money' and 'to protect litigants,

witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'" Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). Determination of a motion to transfer lies within the

broad discretion of the district court and is based on individualized considerations of

convenience and fairness. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.

2000). The party moving for transfer of venue must establish (1) that venue is proper in the

transferor district; (2) that the transferee district is one where the action might have been

brought; and (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and

will promote the interest of justice. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 (C.D.Cal. 1992). If the Court determines that the requested

transferee district is appropriate, the Court must further determine whether the action should

in fact be transferred. In making this determination, the Court considers convenience to the

parties, convenience to the witnesses and the interest of justice. Generally, some weight is

given to the plaintiff's choice of forum and the ease of access to the proof. Decker Coal Co.

v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 2:05-cv-00889-MHM Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 6
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 contend that relevant factors support a change of venue to the Southern

District of Ohio. Defendants argue that on or about April 14, 1995, they executed a

Membership Application and Agreement which set forth the terms of its contract with

Plaintiff and that on June 22, 2004, they were notified that the property located at 2100 Brice

Road, Columbus, Ohio, was divested of its membership in Best Western International. This

notification letter provided that Defendants had fifteen (15) days to remove all Best Western

signs, symbols, designs and marks from the Brice Road property. Defendants contend that

they complied with the cancellation notice, reached an agreement as to the balance owed on

their Best Western account and rendered payment on October 22, 2004. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the District of Arizona.

Defendants contend that venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio based on the

following factors. Defendants' alleged non-compliance took place in Columbus, Franklin

County, Ohio. The witnesses that Defendants intend to call all reside in Columbus, Ohio,

and are beyond the jurisdiction and reach of this Court. Defendants have identified Jui Jer

Lin, a named Defendant, and four other persons as potential witnesses, and contend that

requiring these witnesses to travel approximately two thousand miles from Columbus to

Phoenix would pose undue costs and hardship on Defendants and the witnesses. The

documents and records, including customer base records, are located in Ohio. Defendants

argue that the obligations of Defendant Brice Hotel did not arise out of activities that

occurred in Arizona. Defendants further contend that the forum selection clause in their

Agreement which provided for application of the law of the State of Arizona to the parties'

disputes amounts to a contract of adhesion and is unconscionable. As to this point,

Defendants assert that the Agreement is a standardized form that did not offer them a realistic

opportunity to bargain and they could not obtain the desired license without being held to the

entire contract. Defendants contend that the costs associated with defending this lawsuit in

the District of Arizona create a hardship that clearly outweighs any injustice Plaintiff might

suffer if venue is transferred to the Southern District of Ohio.

Case 2:05-cv-00889-MHM Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 6
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 -

In opposing Defendants' motion to transfer venue, Plaintiff has responded that its

action is not based on non-compliance with the termination letter but upon Defendants'

breach of the terms of the Membership Agreement and violation of federal and state law

provisions. According to Plaintiff, Defendants presented their Application for membership

in the Best Western organization in Arizona and paid their financial accounts owed to Best

Western to Plaintiff's offices in Arizona. Plaintiff contends that all trademark rights that are

the subject of the lawsuit are held by Best Western, an Arizona corporation, and that the

injury complained of occurred to an Arizona corporation. Plaintiff alleges as most significant

that the terms of Defendants' Membership Agreement provided that the Agreement was to

be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Arizona and that Defendants

agreed that the courts located in Arizona would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and

determine all disputes arising from the parties' relationship, with venue in Maricopa County,

Arizona. Plaintiff's records and its witnesses all are located in Phoenix. Four of Defendants'

five witnesses include a Defendant and Defendants' employees who have agreed to

jurisdiction and venue in Arizona.

Plaintiff also has brought to the Court's attention a previous lawsuit between the

parties, Case No. CV-04-2050-PHX-JAT, which asserted similar claims for trademark

infringement and non-payment of accounts. According to Plaintiff, this case was resolved

based on representations that Defendants had ceased all alleged infringing activities and had

paid certain sums due and owing to Plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter allegedly learned that

Defendants were continuing their alleged infringing activities and the instant action was

filed. 

The Court has considered the arguments of the parties and concludes that venue is

proper in the District of Arizona. Part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred in Arizona and venue in this District appears appropriate. Plaintiff chose the

present forum for this litigation and the Court must give some weight to Plaintiff's choice of

forum. Defendants agreed to this forum and venue pursuant to the terms of the Membership

Agreement. Plaintiff is a non-profit membership organization, its bylaws are determined by

Case 2:05-cv-00889-MHM Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 6
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 -

a vote of its members and its directors are elected by its members. Defendant Lin was a

voting member of the Best Western organization until termination of Defendants' Best

Western membership. 

 The Court has reviewed the "Application of Law and Choice of Forum" provisions

of the Membership Agreement. (see Doc. 1 - Complaint, Exhibit 1, paragraphs 37-38). 

"Under federal law, a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and should be enforced

unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the

circumstances." Sarmiento v. BMG Entertainment, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1110 (C.D.Cal.

2003)(citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972)). A forum

selection clause may be found to be unreasonable if (1) its formation was induced by fraud

or overreaching; (2) the complaining party "will for all practical purposes be deprived of his

day in court" because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum; (3) its

enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state. Id.; see also, M/S

Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. at 18. Defendants do not appear to be asserting

fraud or that for all practical purposes they will be deprived of their day in court as a result

of the selected forum. Defendants appear to be asserting overreaching by claiming that they

were powerless to bargain. However, a forum selection clause is not unconscionable despite

the fact that the clause may now be disadvantageous to Defendants, it was presented to them

on a take it or leave it basis or it is a form contract. See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. M.V.

DSR Atlantic, 131 F.3d 1336, 1338 (9th Cir. 1997); and Stamm v. Barclays Bank of New

York, 960 F. Supp. 724, 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Any inconvenience a party "would suffer by

being forced to litigate in the contractual forum as it agreed to do was clearly foreseeable at

the time of contracting." Bremen, 407 U.S. at 17-18. Defendants have not satisfied their

burden of demonstrating that enforcement of the forum-selection clause is unreasonable. 

 On a motion to transfer, the burden is on the defendant to show that the convenience

of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice require transfer to another district. CFA

Northern Cal., Inc. v. CRT Partners LLP, 378 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1185 (N.D.Cal. 2005). Upon

consideration of the relevant factors, and in the interest of the administration of justice, the

Case 2:05-cv-00889-MHM Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 5 of 6
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 -

Court has determined that Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of

Ohio, Eastern Division, should be denied.

. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Southern District

of Ohio, Eastern Division (Doc. 6) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve a responsive

pleading within fifteen (15) days of the filing date of this Order.

 DATED this 25th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00889-MHM Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 6 of 6