Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01865/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01865-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION, a 

California non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah 

limited liability company; DANIEL 

FARR, an individual; and BRYAN 

BRANDENBURG, an individual, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS AND 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SEAL; 

AND 

(DOC. NOS. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 

192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 227) 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

DOCUMENTS 98, 160, AND 196 

 Pending before the Court are both Plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention 

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr, and Bryan Brandenburg’s 

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motions to file documents under seal. Pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matters suitable for decision on the papers 

and without oral argument. As explained more fully below, the Court GRANTS both 

parties’ motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 

227), and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ duplicative motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 98, 

160, and 196). 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 233 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

BACKGROUND 

The heart of this case revolves around Defendants’ use of the unhyphenated form of 

Plaintiff’s trademark “Comic-Con.” (Doc. No. 97 at 10.)1

 Since 1970, Plaintiff, a non-profit 

organization, has held the Comic-Con Convention in San Diego, California celebrating 

comic art, books, and other aspects of the popular arts. (Id. at 9.) In total, Plaintiff holds 

four trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

(“USPTO”): (1) COMIC-CON; (2) COMIC CON INTERNATIONAL; (3) for the wordplus-design mark that Plaintiff uses to advertise its products; and (4) for the word mark 

ANAHEIM COMIC-CON.2

 (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 13.) Defendants Bryan Brandenburg and Daniel 

Farr are co-founders of Defendant Dan Farr Productions. (Doc. No. 102 at 12.) On 

September 5, 2014, Defendants held the first Salt Lake Comic Con (“SLCC”). (Herrera 

Decl. Ex. 5 (“Farr Depo”) 11:4–9, Doc. No. 95-7.) In sum, Plaintiff contends that 

Defendants have used “Comic Con” to advertise their event, which is identical to or 

confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s family of trademarks. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 18.) 

On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants asserting causes 

of action for (1) federal trademark infringement; and (2) false designation of origin. (Doc. 

No. 1.) On September 22, 2014, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint with a 

counterclaim against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 16.) On June 23, 2017, the last day for dispositive 

motions to be filed, both parties filed the present matters, their motions to file documents 

under seal. (Doc. Nos. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 227.) 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 

                                                                

1

 All pinpoint cites are in reference to the CM/ECF page number and not the number on 

the document. 

2

 The marks are registered with the USPTO as U.S. Service Mark Registration Numbers 

3,221,808; 3,219,568; 2,218,236; and 4,425,806. (Doc. No. 97 at 10.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 233 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the 

competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). 

“After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, 

it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its 

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 

related” to the merits of the case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good 

cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff and Defendants have filed a tsunami of motions to seal that relate to their 

motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude still pending before the Court. The 

Court notes that the majority of the documents both parties seek to seal are based on the 

protective order filed on January 20, 2016. (Doc. No. 46.) 

Plaintiff’s request that the Court file under seal (1) its memorandum of points and 

authorities in support of their motion to exclude and exhibits three and four to the 

declaration of Michelle A. Herrera stating that they contain confidential financial 

information, (Doc. No. 89); (2) exhibits two through nine attached to the declaration of 

David Glanzer in support of its motion for summary judgment as it expresses in detail 

Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce its trademark over the past several years, and contains 

confidential litigation and settlement strategies, (Doc. No. 93); (3) its opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on abandonment and estoppel, and 

exhibits 1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20 attached to the declaration of Callie 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 233 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

Bjurstrom as the documents consist of confidential agreements and correspondence 

regarding infringement claims and potential settlement discussions, (Doc. No. 170); (4) its 

reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to exclude as it discloses confidential 

financial information, (Doc. No. 184); and (5) its reply to Defendants’ opposition to its 

motion for summary judgment and exhibit one to the declaration of Michelle Herrera, as 

Defendants designated the transcript as confidential under the protective order, (Doc. No. 

188). 

Defendants request the Court seal (1) their motion for summary judgment based on 

genericness, abandonment, and estoppel, as well as exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 to the 

declaration of Jessica D. Garcia and exhibits 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 to the Declaration of Daniel 

R. Barber in support of their motion for summary judgment, (Doc. Nos. 217, 219); (2) their 

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well as exhibits 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, and 15 to the declaration of Rachel Jacques as Plaintiff’s contend they contain 

sensitive and non-public information, (Doc. No. 224); (3) their opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion to exclude, and exhibits B, D, and E to Daniel Barber’s declaration in support of 

their opposition, and the testimony of Jeffrey P. Kaplan, and Clarke B. Nelson, as these 

documents were given protective designations by Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 164); (4) their 

“corrected” declaration of Jessica D. Garcia in support of their motions for summary 

judgment, (Doc. No. 192); and (5) their reply in support of their motions for summary 

judgment, exhibits 2, 3, 4 to the declaration of Daniel R Barber, and the declaration of 

Daniel Farr, (Doc. No. 227). 

In sum, the Court finds the sealing of the documents at issue appropriate in the 

instant matter. First, the Court notes that it is cognizant that the compelling reasons 

standard is a strict one. However, case law makes clear that motions to seal documents that 

will cause “competitive harm” to a business are generally weighed in favor of sealing. See 

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also In re Elec. 

Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the Ninth Circuit abused its 

discretion when it refused to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 233 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

payment terms” found in a license agreement); Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (holding that 

“sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” may 

give rise to a compelling reason to seal). Additionally, the Court highlights that in regards 

to the documents that were given protective designations by both Plaintiff and Defendants, 

it has already been determined that “good cause exists to protect [the] information from 

being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for 

confidentiality.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that balancing the public’s right of access to 

the listed documents does not outweigh the compelling and good reasons to seal. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants’ motions to seal are GRANTED. 

Additionally, on August 8, 2017, the Court requested that Defendants file a 

supplemental appendix to aid the Court in locating the documents proffered by them. (Doc. 

No. 206.) Thereafter, Defendants filed their supplemental appendix under seal as some of 

the information cited to is designated confidential under the protective order. (Doc. No. 

209.) Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion to seal their supplemental appendix. 

On a final note, it is notable to clarify that the Court requested Defendants re-lodge 

all of their motions and exhibits as their citations did not correspond to the correct exhibit 

numbers on the docket.3

 Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 2017, Defendants filed a notice 

of withdrawal. (Doc. No. 232.) Unfortunately, Defendants’ notice is faulty as it fails to 

withdraw all of the motions to seal that were replaced by the new lodgments. Thus, the 

                                                                

3

 The Court notes that Defendants attached over three thousand documents to their various 

motions. Thus, the need for correct citations was vital to aiding the Court in analyzing their 

arguments and supporting evidence. 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 233 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

Court is left with duplicative motions on the docket.4

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES as 

MOOT said motions to seal. (Doc. Nos. 98, 160, 196.) 

CONCLUSION 

 As explained more fully above, the Court GRANTS Defendants and Plaintiff’s 

motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 227), and 

DENIES as MOOT Defendants’ duplicative motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 98, 160, 196). 

Dated: August 30, 2017 

                                                                

4

 The Court notes that it is not the Court’s function or responsibility to properly lodge 

documents or manage the docket for Defendants. In the future, Defendants should take care 

to inspect their filings to ensure their accuracy before filing them with the Court. 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 233 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6