Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00554/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00554-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

SONOMA FOODS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SONOMA CHEESE FACTORY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

 /

No. C 07-00554 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

OCTOBER 19, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The parties each shall have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 69 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

2

(1) In its order addressing the motion to dismiss filed by plaintiff and counter-defendant

Sonoma Foods, Inc. (“Sonoma Foods”), the Court granted defendants and counterclaimants Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC (“Sonoma Cheese Factory”) and L. Peter

Viviani (collectively, (“Counter-claimants”) leave to amend, but cautioned Counterclaimants to be mindful that their amended allegations must be consistent with their

Counter-complaint. (Order at 10-11.) Upon review of their counterclaims, the Court

tentatively finds that Counter-claimants have changed the alleged factual substance of

the agreement at issue and the alleged breaches. Specifically, Counter-claimants

initially alleged that Sonoma Foods agreed to transfer trademarks associated with the

retail operations, which included but were not limited to: (1) Sonoma Cheese Factory &

design (Reg. No. 1111024) in class 29 for use in association with cheese; (2) Sonoma

Cheese Factory (Reg. No. 1386303), a service mark in class 42 for restaurant services;

(3) Sonoma Deli (Reg. No. 1748715) in class 30 for sandwiches; (4) Sonoma (Reg. No.

1,334,539) in class 29 for use in association with cheese; (5) Sonoma Blue (Reg. No.

2610926) in class 29 for use in association with cheese; (6) Sonoma Jack & design (Reg.

No. 1099709) in class 29 for use in association with cheese; and (7) “Sonoma Jack

(stylized)” (Reg. No. 1099707) in class 29 for use in association with cheese. (First

Amended Answer and Counterclaims, ¶ 12.) Counter-claimants further alleged that

Sonoma Foods registered three additional trademarks that were derived from the

activities of, and were necessary to, the operation of Sonoma Cheese Factory. Counterclaimants therefore alleged that these marks should have been registered for the benefit

of Sonoma Cheese Factory. (Id., ¶ 14.) Counter-claimants alleged Sonoma Foods

breached the agreement by failing to transfer such marks to Sonoma Cheese Factory. 

(Id., ¶¶ 13, 17.) 

In their amended Counter-complaint, Counter-claimants now allege that Sonoma

Foods only agreed to transfer, and did so transfer, two federal marks – Sonoma Cheese

Factory (Reg. No. 1386303) and Sonoma Deli (Reg. No. 1748715). Counter-claimants

also allege that Sonoma Foods agreed to transfer the California Sonoma Cheese Factory

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 69 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

mark but failed to perfect the transfer. The alleged breaches include: (1) breaching an

implied promise by Sonoma Foods not to use marks confusing to the marks transferred

to Sonoma Cheese Factory; (2) failing to perfect the transfer of the California Sonoma

Cheese Factory mark; and (3) failing to renew the California Sonoma Cheese Factory

mark. In contrast to the proceeding complaint, the amended counter-claims depend on

the factual allegations that Sonoma Foods in fact did transfer the two federal marks –

Sonoma Cheese Factory (Reg. No. 1386303) and Sonoma Deli (Reg. No. 1748715).

(a) On what basis do Counter-claimants contend that their allegations regarding the

substance of the alleged agreement and the alleged breaches of such agreement

in their Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims are not inconsistent with

their allegations in their First Amended Answer and Counterclaims? 

(b) If Counter-claimants mistakenly pled factual allegations in their First Amended

Answer and Counterclaims, which were inaccurate, may Counter-claimants alter

their allegations to more accurately reflect the alleged agreement, even if those

allegations are is inconsistent with their original allegations, or are they confined

by their original factual allegations? On what authority, if any, do the parties

rely on to support their respective positions?

(2) Counter-claimants argued that they alleged in their Second Amended Answer and

Counterclaims only that Sonoma Foods failed to record the transfer of the California

Sonoma Cheese Factory mark. However, in paragraph 29, Counter-claimants allege:

“Sonoma Foods never informed Sonoma Cheese Factory that it had failed to transfer the

California mark THE SONOMA CHEESE FACTORY.” (See also Second Amended

Answer and Counterclaims, ¶¶ 30, 33, 55-57.) How are the allegations regarding

Sonoma Foods’ failure to transfer the California mark not inconsistent with the sworn

statements filed by Counter-claimants that Sonoma Foods did transfer this mark?

(3) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: October 18, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 69 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 69 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 4