Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04551/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04551-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

WHAM-O, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SLB TOYS USA, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-04551 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to transfer venue

filed by SLB Toys USA, Inc (“SLB”). Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal

authority and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court HEREBY GRANTS SLB’s

motion.

BACKGROUND

On March 1, 2006, SLB filed an action in the Central District of California against

Wham-O, Inc. (“Wham-O”), Cornerstone Overseas Investments Ltd., Charterhouse Group, Inc.,

and Traxi, LLC (“the Central District action”). In its complaint in the Central District action,

SLB asserted causes of action for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, common

law trademark infringement, breach of confidential and fiduciary relationship, and unfair

competition. With respect to the trademark claims, SLB asserted that Wham-O and the other

defendants infringed its trademark and tradedress rights with respect to SLB’s “Banzai Falls”

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1 Attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Alex M. Weingarten in Support of

Defendant SLB Toys USA, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Central District of California

(“Weingarten Decl.”).

2

line of water slide products. (See, SLB Toys USA, Inc. v. Wham-O, Inc., CV06-1382 (RSWL),

Complaint.)1 

Wham-O asserted counterclaims against SLB in the Central District action and

contended that SLB infringed Wham-O’s color marks and tradedress pertaining to Wham-O’s

“Slip‘N Slide” water slide product line. (Weingarten Decl., Ex. B (Answer and Counterclaim at

pp. 6-14).) 

On July 26, 2006, Wham-O filed the complaint in this action, alleging that SLB has

infringed and diluted Wham-O’s “Wave Rider” mark. (Wham-O, Inc. v. SLB Toys USA, Inc.,

06-4551-JSW, Complaint.) The “Wave Rider” is part of the “Slip ‘N Slide” product line. 

(Wham-O Complaint, Ex. 2.) It is undisputed that SLB’s “Wave Rider” product is not a water

slide. 

On August 16, 2006, SLB moved to transfer this action to the Central District of

California.

ANALYSIS

“For 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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As the moving party, SLB bears the burden of showing that the

inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &

P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (noting that to meet this burden requires

production of affidavits or declarations identifying key witnesses and anticipated testimony).

 In order for a district court to transfer an action under section 1404, it must make the

following two findings: (1) that the transferee court is one where the action “might have been

brought;” and (2) that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice

favor transfer. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). There is no

dispute in this case that SLB could have brought this action in the Central District of California. 

Accordingly, SLB has met its burden on this prong.

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

To determine whether SLB has met its burden on the second prong, the Court considers

the following factors: plaintiff’s choice of forum; convenience of the parties; convenience of the

witnesses; access to compulsory process of third party witnesses; ease of access to sources of

proof; local interest in the controversy; familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; and

relative court congestion in each forum. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947);

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). It is within

the Court’s discretion to determine whether the convenience of the parties, convenience of the

witnesses, and the interests of justice would be served by transfer. E. & J. Gallo, 899 F. Supp.

2d at 466. The Court also considers the fact that SLB filed the Central District action first. See

Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing “first-tofile” rule).

1. The Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.

A court should give the plaintiff’s choice of forum deference unless the defendant can

show that the other factors of convenience clearly outweigh that choice. Decker Coal Co., 805

F.2d at 843. In opposing the motion to transfer, Wham-O contends that the Court should afford

great deference to Wham-O’s choice to file in its home forum. Wham-O acknowledges that the

Central District action was filed earlier than this case but argues that SLB’s assertions regarding

the relationship between this case and the Central District action are misleading because

different marks are at issue and because the allegedly infringing products are not water slides. 

As noted, the“Wave Rider” mark is a mark falling within Wham-O’s Slip ‘N Slide product line,

the product line at issue in the Central District action. Because of the potential overlap between

the two actions and because SLB filed the Central District action first, the Court gives less

weight to Wham-O’s choice of forum. 

2. The Convenience of the Parties.

In addition to considering the plaintiff’s choice of forum, when deciding a motion to

transfer a court considers the relative convenience of the competing forums to all the parties

involved in the lawsuit. Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 508. SLB argues that it would be more

convenient for it to litigate this matter in the Central District, its home forum, while Wham-O

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

argues that it would be more convenient to litigate the case in the Northern District, its home

forum. The record establishes that party witnesses are located in both the Central District and

the Northern District. Wham-O contends that some of its employees are located in

Massachusetts, Texas and Missouri. (See Declaration of Sarah Givan, Ex. 1; Declaration of

Myrna Hennessy, ¶¶ 6-8). SLB offers no evidence of out-of-state party witnesses who would be

required to travel, nor does SLB suggest that it would be easier to travel to Los Angeles rather

than San Francisco. However, whether the matter is pending in Los Angeles or San Francisco,

out-of-state witnesses will be required to travel to California. Accordingly, the Court considers

this factor to be neutral. 

3. The Convenience of the Witnesses and Compulsory Process of Third Party

Witnesses.

The convenience of the witnesses is often the most important factor when deciding a

motion to transfer, as is the availability of key witnesses not within compulsory process of a

district court is a factor. See Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. 508-09. As stated previously, party

witnesses are located in both the Central and Northern Districts. As with party witnesses, SLB

has not identified with specificity any out-of-state third-party witnesses who would have

information material to Wham-O’s claims. Wham-O advises the Court that third party

witnesses are located in Minnesota, Arkansas, Michigan and New Jersey. Because key

witnesses are located in both the Central and Northern Districts and because SLB has not shown

that it would be more convenient for out-of-state witnesses to travel to Los Angeles rather than

San Francisco, the Court finds these two factors to be neutral.

4. The Ease of Access to Sources of Proof.

Access to sources of proof is another factor to consider when evaluating a motion to

transfer. Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 508. Again, SLB does not address this factor specifically but

its principal place of business is within the Central District. Therefore, it is likely that much of

SLB’s evidence is located there. Similarly, Wham-O’s principal place of business is within the

Northern District and therefore its evidence likely is located within this district. The Court finds

this factor to be neutral.

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/03/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

5

5. The Local Interest.

Another consideration in a decision to transfer venue is the local interest in having

localized controversies decided at home. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. Neither Wham-O nor SLB

has addressed this particular factor and because both parties are California residents, the Court

finds this factor to be neutral.

6. Familiarity of each forum with the applicable law

With respect to the trademark claims at issue, the law applied by this Court and its

counterpart in the Central District will be the same. The Court finds that this factor is neutral.

7. Relative court congestion in each forum.

Wham-O has requested that this Court take judicial notice of statistics regarding the

number of cases filed, terminated and pending within the Northern and Central Districts. That

request is GRANTED. Based on those statistics it appears that the Northern District is slightly

less congested than the Central District, and this factor would therefore weigh against transfer.

8. Interests of Justice.

Although the majority of the factors regarding transfer are neutral, when the Court

considers the interests of justice, and judicial efficiency and economy, those considerations tip

the balance in favor of transfer. First, the parties already have engaged in discovery in the

Central District action. Second, Wham-O admits that there is likely to be some overlap between

these two actions with respect to that discovery. Third, and finally, the Court is not persuaded

that the marks at issue in the Central District action are not pertinent to the resolution of the

claims in this case. Accordingly, having concluded that the interests of justice tips the balance

in favor of transfer, the Court GRANTS SLB’s motion. The Clerk is directed to transfer this

action to the Central District of California forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/03/06 Page 5 of 5