Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02311/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02311-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP

MERCHANDISING SERVICE, INC., and

BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LTD.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PHILIP CUSHWAY a/k/a PHIL CUSHWAY

and ARTROCK, INC.,

 Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-2311 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

FILE AMENDED ANSWER 

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Philip Cushway and Artrock, Inc. ("Defendants")

filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiffs

Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc. and

Bravado International Group Limited ("Plaintiffs") filed a notice

of non-opposition to Defendants' Motion. Dkt. No. 18. 

II. BACKGROUND

Defendants have been publishing and selling rock art posters

for the past seventeen years. Plaintiffs are merchandising

companies who have licenses to use the names, likenesses, and

trademarks of the music groups The Who, Led Zeppelin, and Depeche

Mode for publishing and selling posters and other products. 

Case 3:06-cv-02311-SC Document 19 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiffs allege that certain of Defendants' posters violate

Plaintiffs' trademark rights. In their Motion, Defendants seek to

amend their Answer to: 1) add new affirmative defenses, 2) make

revisions to several existing affirmative defenses, 3) make

revisions to ¶ 13 of the first counterclaim, and 4) make revisions

to the Prayer for Relief.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

After a response has been filed, a party may amend its

pleadings "only by leave of court or by written consent of the

adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) provides for

the amendment of pleadings by leave of court and states that leave

"shall be freely given when justice so requires." Id. This rule

is applied with "extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v.

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless,

the decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is committed to

the discretion of the district court, and the court may deny leave

where there is "any apparent or declared reason" for doing so. 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has

identified "four factors relevant to whether a motion for leave to

amend pleadings should be denied: undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the

opposing party." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th

Cir. 1981). "Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry under

rule 15(a)." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Absent

prejudice, there is a presumption in favor of granting leave to

amend. Id.

Case 3:06-cv-02311-SC Document 19 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

IV. DISCUSSION

In this case, Plaintiffs gave notice that they do not oppose

Defendants' Motion to Amend. Dkt. No. 18. This indicates that

Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice if the Court grants leave to

amend. The remaining three factors also weigh in favor of

permitting amendment. First, there is no evidence of undue delay. 

Defendants contacted Plaintiffs several times to discuss a

stipulation to amend the answer and filed their Motion soon after

agreement could not be reached. See Gordet Decl., ¶ 2. 

Similarly, there is no evidence of bad faith, dilatory motive, or

that amendment would be futile.

In summary, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting

leave to amend; there is no evidence in the record that

Defendants' Motion to Amend constitutes undue delay, bad faith,

futility of amendment, or prejudice to the opposing party. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion for Leave

to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. Upon receipt of this Order,

Defendants should e-file a signed and dated Amended Answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 15, 2006

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-02311-SC Document 19 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 3