Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04363/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04363-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GUICHARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MANDALAY PICTURES, LLC, d/b/a

MANDALAY ENTERTAINMENT, METROGOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC., DOES

1-1,000,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-4363 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JULY 29, 2005 AT 9:00 A.M.: 

The Court tentatively rules as follows: (1) the motion to dismiss claims 5 through 8 by

Defendants Motion Picture Association of America, In., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.,

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Walt Disney Pictures and Television, Paramount pictures

Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Universal City Studios LLLP is

GRANTED; (2) the motion for judgment on the pleadings on claims 5 through 8 by Defendants 

Case 3:04-cv-04363-JSW Document 77 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. and Mandalay Pictures LLC is GRANTED IN PART.

 Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) Does the fact that the appeal of this Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction is still pending divest this Court jurisdiction to hear the

pending motions, at least insofar as they pertain to the claims under the Lanham

Act and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.? Should

the Court grant the motions, what effect would that order have on the pending

appeal?

(2) If Plaintiff cannot allege that he has attempted to register the title for his In2Blue

motion picture project with the Title Registration Bureau (“TRB”), or that any

member of the TRB has refused to produce or distribute his motion picture on

account of any action by the TRB or its Rules, what injury can Plaintiff claim

was actually caused by TRB that would confer him standing to allege an antitrust

cause of action?

(3) The court in Clorox Company v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc., 117 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir.

1997), held that a trademark in the name of a product does not confer a legal

monopoly on any good or idea as it confers rights to a name only. The court

reasoned that a trademark agreement, between private parties, does no more than

regulate how the name of a product may be used; it does not in any way restrict

the production or sale of competing products. The court in California Packing

Corp. v. Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California, 165 F. Supp. 245, 250-51 (S.D.

Cal. 1958), similarly held that an agreement not to use a specific product name

does not prevent the production and marketing of competing goods. How does

Plaintiff attempt to distinguish these cases?

(4) What does Plaintiff claim to be the relevant market for purposes of his antitrust

claims?

(5) Although Defendants Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. and Mandalay

Pictures LLC basically filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss, can the remaining

causes of action (one through four) still pending against MGM and Mandalay

form the basis for standing a claim under California Business and Professions

Code Section 17200 for unlawful business practices?

(6) Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: July 28, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04363-JSW Document 77 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2