Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNERGY TECH & DESIGN INC. d/b/a

ROAD ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIM TERRY, SANDY TERRY, JIM

MEEKINS, DIXIE MEEKINS, JD

DISTRIBUTING, and ROAD ARMOR USA,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02073 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MAY 26, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Who owns the disputed marks? Is there a sufficient record to establish

ownership of the disputed marks warranting the granting of an extreme remedy

which requires the moving party to establish a strong likelihood of success on the

merits?

a. When and under what circumstances did Defendant James D.

Terry assign his rights to the ROAD ARMOR mark? Does

Plaintiff contend that Terry, as President of Road Armor Corp.,

was authorized to assign the rights owned by the company? What

marks were allegedly assigned? (The letter references Exhibit B

designating the “Assigned Trademarks,” but there is no

attachment to the Medlock Declaration, Ex. A.)

b. There are various alleged assignments amongst the parties. There

are currently two with different dates from Jim Terry, as President

of Road Armor and as an individual, to Jim Medlock. In addition,

the later assignments reference different dates for previous

assignments. Lastly, there is conflicting evidence regarding

which parts of the alleged assignments were documented before

the Patent and Trademark Office. How, on this record, can the

Court determine the disputed ownership issues?

c. What is the relationship of J3 LLC and Synergy Tech and what

were the circumstances of the simultaneous assignment of rights? 

Why was Terry involved in the alleged assignments to J3 LLC

and Plaintiff, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Medlock

Declaration? Does Terry contest the validity of his October 2005

assignment (Terry Decl., ¶ 5)?

d. What is the status of the other disputed marks, SUMMIT

ENTERPRISES and SUMMIT SUT? Where in the record is the

ownership of these marks established? What evidence in the

record, beside the reference in the Hanson Declaration at ¶ 5,

demonstrates that these marks have acquired strength or

recognition in the marketplace?

2. Are the alleged assignments invalid by virtue of the nominal consideration?

3. It appears that the parties agree that the Meekins Defendants are authorized to

sell off their small remaining inventory of Plaintiff’s products. In addition, it

appears from the record that Plaintiff has given some authorization for the use of

its copyrighted images to promote the Meekins’ sale of this inventory. On what

basis does Plaintiff contend that the Meekins’ use of the mark is infringing? 

What evidence is there in the record to indicate that any disputed use is

continuing?

4. What evidence is there in the record, which is not conclusory argument of

counsel, indicating that there is actual confusion in the marketplace?

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3