Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01878/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01878-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAM CELLARS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WINE GROUP LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01878-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RELATE AND

GRANTING THE STIPULATION TO 

CONSOLIDATE AND EXTEND THE 

CASE SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 58, 88

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s administrative motion to relate this case to JaM 

Cellars, Inc. v. The Wine Group LLC, Case No. 20-cv-2229-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (“Jam II”), Dkt. No. 

55, Defendant’s motion to consolidate the two cases, Dkt. No. 58, and the parties’ stipulation to 

consolidate the two cases and continue case deadlines, Dkt. No. 88. For the reasons noted below, 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to relate, GRANTS the parties’ stipulation to consolidate 

the two cases and extend the case schedule, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to 

consolidate.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Jam I, “BUTTER”

On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff JaM Cellars, Inc. (“JaM”) filed suit to prevent The Wine Group 

LLC’s (“TWG”) use of “BUTTERY” to describe its FRANZIA “RICH & BUTTERY” brand. 

Case No. 19-cv-1878, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 20. JaM produces BUTTER Chardonnay wine, and on July 

19, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted registration of the 

“BUTTER” mark to JaM Cellars as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,999,253. Id. at ¶ 8. 

Pointing largely to the size and placement of “BUTTERY” on Defendant’s new “RICH & 

BUTTERY” product, JaM claims that Defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer 

confusion. Id. at ¶¶ 29–31. 

Case 4:19-cv-01878-HSG Document 90 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

B. Jam II, “JAM”

On April 1, 2020, JaM again filed suit, this time to prevent TWG’s use of “JAM” to 

describe its FRANZIA “BOLD & JAMMY” brand. Case No. 20-cv-2229, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 24–26. 

JaM produces JAM Cabernet Sauvignon wine and obtained USPTO registration of the “JAM” 

mark as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,787,299. Id. at ¶ 8. Again, by pointing to the size and 

placement of “JAM” on TWG’s new “BOLD & JAMMY” product, JaM alleges that “Defendant 

adopted the BOLD & JAMMY mark to capitalize upon the great success of the JAM Marks and to 

unfairly compete with the JAM brand by misleading consumers as to the origin of BOLD & 

JAMMY wine.” Id. at ¶ 26.

II. MOTION TO RELATE

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that an action is related to another when (1) “[t]he 

actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event” and (2) “[i]t appears 

likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting 

results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.”

The Court finds that the Jam II matter is related to this case within the meaning of Civil 

Local Rule 3-12(a). The cases involve the same parties and the same underlying legal claims. 

Additionally, although the underlying products, marks, and some portion of evidence differ, it 

appears likely that to avoid duplication of labor or conflicting results, the two matters should be 

related. Accordingly, as the judge assigned to case 19-cv-01878-HSG, JaM Cellars Inc. v. The 

Wine Group LLC, I find that the more recently filed case that I have initialed below is related to 

the case assigned to me, and such case shall be reassigned to me. 

Case Title Related

20-cv-02229-CRB JaM Cellars, Inc. v. The Wine Group LLC HSG

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the 

initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management 

conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the 

dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCP 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless 

otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re- noticed by 

the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules 

Case 4:19-cv-01878-HSG Document 90 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, 

except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned judge. 

III. STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

Having considered the Stipulation Consolidating Cases and Extending Case Deadlines 

(Dkt. No. 88, Case No. 4:19-cv-01878-HSG), it is hereby ordered that the stipulation is 

GRANTED. GOOD CAUSE appearing therefor, the cases captioned JaM Cellars, Inc. v. The 

Wine Group LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-01878-HSG; and JaM Cellars, Inc. v. The Wine Group LLC,

Case No. 3:20-cv-02229-CRB are hereby consolidated into JaM Cellars, Inc. v. The Wine Group 

LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-01878-HSG. 

The earlier-filed civil action, Case No. 4:19-cv-01878-HSG, shall serve as the lead case. 

The clerk is directed to administratively close the later-filed civil action, Case No. 3:20-cv-02229-

CRB.

IV. CASE SCHEDULE

The parties submitted a proposed an amended schedule on May 8, 2020 for the 

consolidated case. See Dkt. No. 88. The parties also propose to conduct a joint settlement 

conference in both cases on May 12, 2020, on the date previously set in the “Rich and Buttery” 

case. Finding good cause to modify the scheduling order, the Court SETS the following deadlines 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

Event Date

Joint Settlement Conference As scheduled by Judge Kim

Deadline for TWG to Answer Jam II

Complaint

May 15, 2020

Initial Disclosures May 29, 2020

**The Court DIRECTS the parties to refile their motion for preliminary 

injunction in the consolidated case (Case No. 19-cv-1878) by May 15, 2020. 

The briefing and hearing schedule is provided below.

Opposition to Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction

June 1, 2020

Deadline to File Amended Rule 26(f) Report June 5, 2020

Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction

June 15, 2020

Hearing on Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction

July 9, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.

Close of Fast Discovery August 24, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-01878-HSG Document 90 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Exchange Opening Expert Reports August 28, 2020

Exchange Rebuttal Expert Reports September 18, 2020

Close of Expert Discovery October 9, 2020

Pretrial Conference November 24, 2020 at 3:00 

p.m.

5-Day Jury Trial December 14, 2020 at 8:30 

a.m.

These dates may only be altered by order of the Court and only upon a showing of good cause. 

The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court’s Civil Pretrial and Trial Standing 

Order. This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 55, 58, and 88.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/11/2020

Case 4:19-cv-01878-HSG Document 90 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 4