Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02084/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02084-2/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC., a

Delaware corporation

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TIBCO INDUSTRIAL, INC.,

 Defendant.

_____________________________/

No. C 05-2084 WDB

AMENDED ORDER

RESCHEDULING HEARING RE

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AND PERMITTING

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS

FROM PLAINTIFF

The Court has reviewed plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, filed

September 7, 2005 ("Motion").

It is not clear to us, based on plaintiff's submissions thus far made, that the facts

as set forth in plaintiff's papers would support a finding of liability on any of

plaintiff's theories. The Court primarily is concerned about the apparently

considerable difference between the services/products provided by the two

companies. In particular, the Court is concerned about the following.

1. Plaintiff has not addressed the factors to be considered by the Court in

determining whether to enter judgment by default. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470

(9th Cir. 1986). Among other things, Eitel directs the Court to consider "the merits

of plaintiff's substantive claim[s]." We identify concerns about the merits of

Case 3:05-cv-02084-SC Document 22 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 4
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

plaintiff's claims below. We also note that, by failing to respond to the complaint,

defendant does not admit facts not well-pleaded in the complaint or mere conclusions

of law. E.g., Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. GA 2004); see

also, Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

2. With respect to plaintiff's claims for trademark infringement and false

designation, plaintiff has not set forth facts that address each of the "Sleekcraft"

factors. The Court is especially concerned with factors pertaining to the relatedness

of the two companies' products or services. The Ninth Circuit notes that "[e]ven

where there is precise identity of a complainant's and an alleged infringer's mark,

there may be no consumer confusion – and thus no trademark infringement – if the

alleged infringer is in a different geographic area or in a wholly different industry."

Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036,

1054 (9th Cir. 1999) emphasis added. See also, Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd.,

v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002) (Sleekcraft factors as applied to domain

name use – "as a matter of law," not all uses of www.epix.com generate initial interest

confusion with the EPIX mark).

3. With respect to plaintiff's claim for trademark dilution, among other

things, plaintiff has not set forth facts that could support a finding that plaintiff's mark

is sufficiently "famous" to support a claim for dilution from a product outside

plaintiff's niche market. Thane Int'l., Inc., v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, 305 F.3d 894

(9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, as we read plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff alleges that

defendant's use of "Tibco" "threatens" to dilute and "creates a likelihood of dilution,"

but the Supreme Court has held that 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(1) "unambiguously requires

a showing of actual dilution, rather than a likelihood of dilution." Moseley v. V Secret

Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 433 (2003) emphasis added. Moreover, it is not clear

from plaintiff's complaint how defendant's use of the mark allegedly dilutes the mark

– e.g., tarnishing, blurring, other.

Case 3:05-cv-02084-SC Document 22 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 4
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

4. Finally, if plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to establish liability, we have

concerns about the scope of plaintiff's requested injunction. 

First, the scope of the injunction sought, as described in plaintiff's Motion, is

broader than that set forth in plaintiff's complaint. Has defendant received proper

notice about the scope of the risk it faced by ignoring the complaint? 

Second, plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring defendant to destroy all

materials bearing the Tibco mark. Case law indicates that such a remedy is generally

unnecessary. What factors necessitate use of this remedy in this case (assuming the

Court can order remedies not sought in the complaint)? 

Third, plaintiff asks the Court to order "the registrar" to transfer defendant's

domain name to plaintiff. Assuming plaintiff can establish that use of the domain

name infringes (see, Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936), what is the source of authority for

plaintiff's position that this Court has jurisdiction over "the registrar?" Moreover,

Congress provided for the transfer of a domain name to a mark owner in 15 U.S.C.

§1125(d) with respect to claims for "cyberpiracy." Plaintiff has not asserted a claim

under §1125(d). What authority supports an award of the relief requested in

connection with trademark infringement, false designation, or dilution claims?

5. Plaintiff's complaintincludes a claimfor "unfair competition." Plaintiff's

Motion does not separately address the elements of this claim. We assume that, under

the circumstances of this case, plaintiff has concluded that its claim for unfair

competition is co-extensive with and redundant of its remaining claims.

For the above reasons, the Court is inclined to recommend that the District

Judge to whom this matter will be reassigned deny plaintiff's motion for default

judgment. However, plaintiff may, if it chooses, submit additional evidentiary and

legal submissions that address the concerns identified above.

Case 3:05-cv-02084-SC Document 22 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 4
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

By Monday, November 7, 2005, plaintiff must file with the Court and serve

on defendant supplemental evidentiary and legal submissions, if any, that address the

above matters.

By Monday, November 21, 2005, defendant must file and serve its response,

if any, to plaintiff's submissions.

The Court VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for October 26, 2005,

at 2:30 p.m..

If plaintiff files supplemental submissions on November 7th, the Court will

conduct a hearing in connection with plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment on

December 7, 2005, at 2:15 p.m.

If plaintiff does not file supplemental submissions on November 7th, the Court

will not conduct a hearing, and plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment will be

DEEMED SUBMITTED. The Court will issue its report and recommendation based

on the papers without oral argument.

Plaintiff must immediately serve defendant with a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2005 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies e-mailed to:

parties of record, 

WDB, stats

Case 3:05-cv-02084-SC Document 22 Filed 10/24/05 Page 4 of 4