Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01849/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01849-0/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

- 1 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA BOARD SPORTS, INC.,

a California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

MARK A. GRIFFIN, an individual; GBAGS, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited

liability company,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Request for Appointment of Counsel for Defendant

G-Bags, LLC filed by Defendant Mark A. Griffin (“Griffin”) (ECF No. 19), the Motion for a

Stay of All Proceedings (ECF No. 21) filed by Griffin, and the Motion for Dismissal of

Plaintiff’s Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Griffin (ECF No. 23).

BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2010, Plaintiff California Board Sports, Inc. initiated this action by

filing a Complaint and filed an Amended Complaint on September 29, 2010, alleging claims

of false designation of origin and false representation, federal trademark infringement, state

trademark infringement and unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement and

unfair competition against Defendants Mark A. Griffin and G-Bags, LLC. (ECF Nos. 1, 8).

On October 14, 2010, Defendant Mark Griffin, filed a Motion requesting an extension of time

to respond to the Complaint for himself and G-Bags, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability

company. (ECF No. 13). The Court granted Defendant Griffin an extension of time to

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 7
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 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

respond to the Complaint and stated: “To date, there has been no appearance in this case by

any attorney for either Defendant Griffin or G-Bags, LLC.” (ECF No. 18 at 1 (citing Civ. L.R.

83.3(k) which provides: “Only natural persons representing their individual interests in propria

persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney .... All other parties,

including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through

an attorney ....”)). 

 On November 12, 2010, Defendant Griffin filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel

for Defendant G-Bags, LLC. (ECF No. 19). On November 16, 2010, Defendant Griffin filed

a Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings (ECF No. 21) and a Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 23). 

On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Griffin’s Motion to Dismiss Due

to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Motion to Stay Proceedings. (ECF No. 25). 

 DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Defendant G-Bags, LLC

Defendant Mark Griffin, who is proceeding pro se, requests appointment of counsel for

Defendant G-Bags, LLC, a limited liability company. 

Generally, a person does not have a right to counsel in a civil case. See Campbell v.

Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.1998); Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.1982). A federal court does not have the authority to “make

coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310

(1989). A court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) does

not apply to “artificial entities.” Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory

Council, 506 U.S. 194, 211 (1993). In addition: “It has been the law for the better part of two

centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”

Id. at 201-02. Therefore, Defendant Mark Griffin may not bring this Motion on behalf of

Defendant G-Bags, LLC, and even if he could the Motion is DENIED. 

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 7
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 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

II. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant Mark Griffin seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint due to lack of personal

jurisdiction or, alternatively, seeks a transfer of venue to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Griffin has submitted an affidavit and states that he has never been a resident of California, he

has not engaged in business transactions in California, he does not conduct activity in

California, and the only contact he has had with Plaintiff were emails and phone conversations

in an attempt to settle this action. 

Plaintiff California Board Sports, Inc. contends that Defendant Griffin has advertised

his products for sale on his website www.g-bags.com as well as via Facebook, Twitter,

YouTube, Merchant Circle, Super Pages, and Yellow Pages. Plaintiff contends that by doing

so, Defendant Griffin has “clearly marketed and made his products available for purchase by

California customers.” (ECF No. 25 at 2). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Griffin has sold

products in California. Plaintiff contends that prior to this lawsuit, Defendant Griffin, through

Ohio counsel, sent Plaintiff a cease and desist letter regarding Plaintiff’s use of its trademark

G BAGS. 

Plaintiff has submitted the abstract of title for the trademark registration of G-BAGS

which states that on June 8, 2007, Defendant Mark Griffin applied for the trademark and on

March 18, 2008, Defendant Mark Griffin obtained the trademark. Plaintiff has also submitted

the assignment of abstract of title which states that on July 23, 2010, Defendant Griffin

assigned the G-BAGS mark to G-Bags, LLC. 

Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of Joshua J. Richman who states that on

September 3, 2010, he purchased a product from Defendant’s website www.gbags.com using

the “electronic shopping function located on the website.” (ECF No. 25-1 at 1). Richman

states in his declaration that on September 13, 2010, Defendant Griffin sent him an email

confirming the order and stating that the product had been shipped. Id. Richman has attached

the email and receipt showing that the order was shipped to his San Diego address. Id. at 4-5.

Richman has also submitted copies of G-Bag’s Facebook page, Twitter messages, and

YouTube page containing advertisements for products offered by G-Bags. The Facebook page

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 3 of 7
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 letter is addressed to Osiris Shoes, Legal Department, 5601 Palmer Way,

Carlsbad, California 92010. Plaintiff California Board Sports, Inc. alleges that this letter was

sent to it. Plaintiff is a corporation with its principal place of business located at 5601 Palmer

Way, Carlsbad, California 92010. 

- 4 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

contains photo albums of G-Bag products created on September 16, 2009, posts describing the

products and providing the website address www.gbags.com, and invitations to participate in

monthly contests by “following” Defendant’s Twitter account to win free G-Bags products

dated from June 11, 2009 through February 10, 2010. Id. at 11-17. The Twitter messages

include product videos and commercials, links to other websites which carry G-Bags products,

links to the website address www.gbags.com, and invitations to participate in contests by

“following” Defendant’s Twitter account to win free G-Bags products dated from March 25,

2009 through July 4, 2010. Id. at 19-170. The YouTube page contains videos of G-Bags

products. Id. at 172. One video dated January 18, 2009, contains the following statement:

“This is our recently released media commercial providing the merits of all our products.

www.gbags.com Enjoy.” Id. Plaintiff has also attached a letter to the Complaint dated August

26, 2010 and sent to a Carlsbad, California address in which an attorney states that he represent

Defendant G-Bags, L.L.C. and states:

It recently came to our attention that your company is marketing and

selling a product labeled as the ‘G BAG.’ This product is apparently

offered for sale on numerous online retailers ... and available at skate shops

at various locations across the United States. Clearly [Plaintiff]1

 cannot

continue to market and sell goods in direct competition with our client’s

line of identical products under a moniker that is so likely to cause

customer confusion with our registered trademark.

(ECF No. 1 at 16).

On a motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears

the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Portage La Prarie

Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990). Where the motion to dismiss is based on

written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie

showing of jurisdictional facts to satisfy this burden. Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104,

1108 (9th Cir. 2002). While the plaintiff cannot “simply rest on the bare allegations of its

complaint,” Amba Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 4 of 7
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 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

1977), uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. AT&T v. Campagnie

Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). Conflicts between parties over

statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.; see also

Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Because

the prima facie jurisdictional analysis requires us to accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true,

we must adopt [the plaintiff’s] version of events for purposes of this appeal.”). “[I]f a

plaintiff’s proof is limited to written materials, it is necessary only for these materials to

demonstrate facts which support a finding of jurisdiction in order to avoid a motion to

dismiss.” Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th

Cir. 1977). 

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must be authorized

under the state’s long-arm statute and must satisfy the due process clause of the United States

Constitution. Pac. Atl. Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir.

1985). California’s long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction “on any basis

not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the United States.” Cal. Civ. Pro. Code

§ 410.10. Due process requires that the defendant have such “minimum contacts” with the

forum state that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend “traditional

notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.

310, 316 (1954). Under due process analysis, a defendant may be subject to either general or

specific personal jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.

408, 414 (1984).

“For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant . . . the defendant must

engage in continuous and systematic general business contacts, that approximate physical

presence in the forum state.” Schwartzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801

(9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). “This is an exacting standard, as it should be,

because a finding of general jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled into court in the forum

state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world.” Id. 

A court exercises specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant where the claim arises

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 5 of 7
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 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

out of or has a substantial connection to the defendant’s contact with the forum. Glencore

Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Ninth Circuit analyzes specific jurisdiction according to a three-prong test:

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or

consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform

some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting

activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forumrelated activities; and

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial

justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. 

Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 

When personal jurisdiction is premised on a defendant’s internet activity, courts must

examine “the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that

occurs on the Web site.” Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 418 (9th Cir. 1997)

(quotation omitted). “[T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally

exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an

entity conducts over the Internet.” Id. at 419 (quotation omitted); see also Gator.Com Corp.

v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 341 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (“This test requires both that the party

in question clearly [do] business over the Internet, and that the internet business contacts with

the forum state be substantial or continuous and systematic.”) (quotation and citation omitted).

The Court concludes that Defendant’s website www.gbags.com is interactive and

commercial in nature. Defendant Griffin has advertised extensively over the internet and has

directed business activities at consumers in California by selling products on the website

www.gbags.com and shipping merchandise to a San Diego address. In addition, Defendant

Griffin’s limited liability company sent a letter to Plaintiff at a Carlsbad, California address

requesting Plaintiff to “immediately terminate use of the trademark ‘G-BAG’ or any

confusingly similar product name ....” (ECF No. 1 at 16). The Court concludes that Plaintiff

has made a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. 

 III. Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings 

Defendant Mark Griffin also seeks “a stay of all proceedings and discovery, or in the

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 - 10cv1849 WQH (WVG)

alternative for a protective order preventing that any discovery be served on him, pending

resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ....” (ECF No. 21). 

This Court has ruled on the Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint Due to Lack

of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Griffin; therefore, a stay pending resolution of the Motion is

not necessary. Defendant Griffin’s Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings (ECF No. 21) is

DENIED as moot. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request for Appointment of Counsel for Defendant

G-Bags, LLC filed by Defendant Griffin (ECF No. 19) and the Motion for Dismissal of

Plaintiff’s Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Griffin (ECF

No. 23) are DENIED. The Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings (ECF No. 21) filed by

Defendant Griffin is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: February 14, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01849-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 02/14/11 Page 7 of 7