Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02606/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02606-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

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 - 10cv2606

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BLUE COVE CORP., a Delaware

Corporation d/b/a/ AUGEN OPTICS in the

State of California,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2606-IEG(BGS)

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer Action

vs. [Doc. 12]

ODYSSEY MEDICAL, INC., a Tennessee

Corporation,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is the motion to dismiss, stay or transfer action filed by

Defendant Odyssey Medical, Inc. (“Odyssey”) based upon the first-to-file rule. The Court found

the motion appropriate for submission on the papers and without oral argument, and previously

vacated the hearing date. For the reasons explained herein, the Court GRANTS Odyssey’s

motion.

Background

On November 6, 2010, more than one month before Plaintiff Blue Cove Corp. d/b/a/

Augen Optics (“Blue Cove”) filed the current suit, Defendant Odyssey Medical, Inc. (“Odyssey”)

initiated litigation against Augen Opticos S.A. de C.V. (“Augen Opticos”) in the U.S. District

Court for the Western District of Tennessee. In the Tennessee action, Odyssey alleges Augen

Opticos’ use of the mark “AUGEN PARASOL” infringes Odyssey’s federally registered

trademark PARASOL®, U.S. Registration No. 2,211,886. [W.D. Tennessee Complaint, Case No.

Case 3:10-cv-02606-IEG-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/28/11 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 - 10cv2606

2:10cv2797, Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1-3, ¶ 16.] 

On December 17, 2010, Blue Cove filed this action for declaratory relief. Blue Cove

alleges it is an exclusive licensee and the exclusive distributor of opthalmic lenses sold by Augen

Opticos, a Mexican company doing business outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United

States. [Complaint, ¶ 1.] Augen Opticos uses the term AUGEN PARASOL in connection with its

marketing and sale of opthalmic lenses. Blue Cove seeks a declaration that its use of AUGEN

PARASOL in the marketing and sale of Augen Opticos opthalmic lenses does not infringe

Odyssey’s PARASOL® trademark. [Id., ¶ 11.] Blue Cove alleges that “[b]y virtue of its

affiliation with Augen Opticos, a real and actual case or controversy exists between [itself] and

Odyssey regarding [its] further use of the term AUGEN PARASOL.” [Id., ¶ 13.]

On December 27, 2010, Odyssey amended the complaint in the Tennessee action to add

Blue Cove dba Augen Optics as a Defendant. [Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit B.] 

Odyssey now moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the federal

common law first-to-file rule. In the alternative, Odyssey seeks a stay of this action or an order

transferring the action to the Western District of Tennessee.

Discussion

The “first-to-file” rule is a “generally recognized doctrine of federal comity” that allows a

district court to decline jurisdiction over an action “when a complaint involving the same parties

and issues has already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678

F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Pursuant to the rule, “when two identical actions

are filed in courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquired jurisdiction should try

the lawsuit and no purpose would be served by proceeding with a second action.” Id. However,

this rule is “not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied

with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Id.

In applying the “first to file” rule, the court looks to three threshold factors: (1) the

chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues.

See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991). If the case meets

the requirements of the “first to file” rule, the court has the discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss

Case 3:10-cv-02606-IEG-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/28/11 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 - 10cv2606

the action. See id. at 628-29. However, even where the rule would otherwise apply, the court also

has the discretion to “dispense” with its application “for reasons of equity.” Id. at 628.

1. Chronology of the two actions

Odyssey’s action in the Western District of Tennessee was filed more than a month before

this action. In opposition, Blue Cove argues that because it was not named in Odyssey’s original

complaint, the Court should determine the chronology of the actions based upon the date of filing

of the amended complaint. However, courts have consistently held that the relevant date to be

used for purposes of the first-to-file rule is the date of the original filing and not an amendment.

Intersearch Worldwide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Group, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 949, 958 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

(relevant date for purposes of first-to-file analysis is date of filing of original complaint regardless

of when or how parties were later added); Ward v. Follett Corp., 158 F.R.D. 645, 648 (N.D. Cal.

1994) (relevant inquiry is filing date of original complaint); Plating Resources, Inc. v. UTI Corp.,

47 F. Supp. 2d 899, 904 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (same).

2. Similarity of the parties

Blue Cove dba Augen Optics is named as a defendant in Odyssey’s amended complaint in

the Western District of Tennessee. In this Court, Blue Cove alleges it is an exclusive licensee and

the exclusive distributor of Augen Opticos products in the United States. [Complaint, ¶ 1.] Blue

Cove alleges there exists a real and actual case and controversy between itself and Odyssey

regarding the further use of the term AUGEN PARASOL based upon its affiliation with Augen

Opticos. [Complaint, ¶ 13.] Nonetheless, Blue Cove argues it is a completely separate and

distinct entity for purposes of analysis under the first-to-file rule. The Court disagrees. 

Odyssey has shown that Blue Cove dba Augen Optics has held itself out interchangeably

with the corporate identity Augen Opticos S.A. de C.V. in prior dealings in this Court and with the

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. [Complaint filed in S.D. Cal. Case No. 10cv1512-IEG, ¶ 7;

Declaration of Russell Walker filed in the W.D. Tenn., Exhibit C to Odyssey’s Reply, Doc. 16-3,

¶¶ 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 31 and related Exhibits.] Augen Optics and Augen Opticos

share a physical office in San Diego. [Supplemental Declaration of Russell Walker in Support of

Odyssey’s Reply (“Walker Supp. Decl.”), Doc. 16-1, Exhibit H-1 (identifying Augen Opticos’

Case 3:10-cv-02606-IEG-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/28/11 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 - 10cv2606

address as 6020 Progressive Avenue, San Diego; Complaint, ¶ 8 (identifying Blue Cove’s address

as 6020 Progressive Avenue, San Diego).] The companies’ websites resolve to an identical IP

address and the content of their websites is identical. [Walker Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 2-96, 98, 100.] 

Nowhere on those websites is there any reference to “Blue Cove.” [Walker Supp. Decl., ¶ 97.] 

Based thereon, the Court concludes there is sufficient similarity between Blue Cove dba Augen

Optics and Augen Opticos to justify application of the first-to-file rule.

3. Similarity of claims

Odyssey’s complaint in the Western District of Tennessee alleges that Augen Opticos’ use

of the “AUGEN PARASOL” mark infringes Odyssey’s federally registered trademark

PARASOL®, U.S. Registration No. 2,211,886. In the current case, Blue Cove seeks a declaration

that its use of AUGEN PARASOL in the marketing and sale of Augen Opticos opthalmic lenses

does not infringe Odyssey’s PARASOL® trademark. Blue Cove in its opposition does not dispute

that the claims are sufficiently similar to justify application of the first-to-file rule.

4. Exceptions to application of the first-to-file rule

In opposition to Odyssey’s motion to dismiss, Blue Cove primarily argues the Court should

exercise its discretion not to follow the first-to-file rule for reasons of equity. The court has

discretion to dispense with application of the first-to-file rule for reasons of equity or to conserve

judicial resources. Alltrade, Inc., 946 F.2d at 628. Courts decline to apply the rule where there is

bad faith or forum shopping or where the first-filed action is an anticipatory suit. Id. 

Here, Blue Cove argues that convenience weighs in favor of litigating in California, rather

than Tennessee, based upon the location of witnesses and documents and also based on the relative

size and resources of the two companies. This argument, however, should be addressed in the first

instance by the court in which the first action was commenced. Alltrade, Inc., 946 F.2d at 628

(quoting Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982) (although

party raised serious questions regarding the propriety of proceeding in jurisdiction in which first

action was filed, such question normally “should be addressed to the court in the first-filed

action”). The Court notes that Augen Opticos has filed a motion to dismiss in the W.D. Tennessee

based on lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. Blue Cove dba Augen

Case 3:10-cv-02606-IEG-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/28/11 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 1

In its opposition to Odyssey’s current motion, Blue Cove asserts it has not yet been

properly served in the Tennessee action.

- 5 - 10cv2606

Optics has not yet appeared in that action.1 To the extent Blue Cove believes this Court is the

more appropriate venue to litigate the parties’ trademark claims, it should first raise such

arguments with the Tennessee court. 

5. Appropriate remedy

In most cases, dismissal of a second-filed action is appropriate. Alltrade, Inc., 946 F.2d at

629. However, where the first-filed suit may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the secondfiled action should ordinarily be stayed so as to avoid any later statute of limitations problems. Id. 

Here, as pointed out above, Blue Cove dba Augen Optics has not yet appeared in the Tennessee

action. However, Augen Opticos has filed a motion to dismiss in that Court based on lack of

personal jurisdiction. If the Tennessee court dismisses Odyssey’s action for lack of personal

jurisdiction, Blue Cove may nonetheless pursue its claims for declaratory relief in this Court. 

Depending upon how long the parties litigate jurisdictional issues in Tennessee, Blue Cove could

face statute of limitations problems if the Court were to dismiss this case. Therefore, instead of

dismissing the current action, the Court will stay it pending the Tennessee court’s decision on the

jurisdictional and venue issues raised by Blue Cove dba Augen Optics and Augen Opticos. If the

Tennessee court rejects the jurisdictional and venue arguments before it and allows Odyssey to

proceed, this case will be dismissed. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Odyssey’s motion based upon the

first-to-file rule. However, the Court declines to dismiss the action but instead orders it STAYED

pending decision by the Tennessee court on the jurisdictional and venue issues raised by Blue

Cove dba Augen Optics and Augen Opticos. This case will be dismissed upon notice that the

///

///

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-02606-IEG-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/28/11 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 - 10cv2606

Tennessee court intends to proceed with that first-filed action. Odyssey shall file a status report

with this Court regarding the proceedings in the Tennessee court no later than 90 days after the

filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-02606-IEG-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/28/11 Page 6 of 6