Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00089/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00089-0/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMAGENETIX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-0089-H (RBB)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

STAY LITIGATION

vs.

GNC PARENT, LLC; GNC CORP.;

GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS,

INC.; GENERAL NUTRITION CORP.;

GNC HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-

4,000, inclusive,

Defendants.

On May 29, 2012, Defendants GNC Parent, LLC, GNC Corp., General Nutrition

Centers, Inc., General Nutrition Corp., and GNC Holdings, Inc. (“GNC” or “Defendants”) filed

a motion to stay this action pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings between Plaintiff

Imagenetix, Inc. and a third party, TriPharma, LLC. (Doc. No. 15.) On July 9, 2012,

Imagenetix filed a response in opposition of GNC’s motion for a stay. (Doc. No. 18.) On July

16, 2012, GNC filed a reply. (Doc. No. 20.) 

The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, submits

it on the parties’ papers pursuant to the LocalRule 7.1(d)(1), and vacatesthe hearing scheduled

for July 23, 2012. For the following reasons, the Court denies GNC’s motion to stay.

///

///

- 1 - 12cv0089

Case 3:12-cv-00089-H-RBB Document 21 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 6
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

Imagenetix is a manufacturer and distributor of nutritional supplements. Imagenetix

applied for a federal trademark for the name “Trisynex” on December 8, 2006, and the mark

was registered to Imagenetix on July 29, 2008. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶15.) 

 GNC is a global retailer of nutritional products. On January 11, 2012, Imagenetix filed

this suit against GNC asserting claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false

advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment concerning the Trisynex® mark. (Doc.

No. 1.) GNC admits that it uses the Trisynex® mark in connection with its Physio-BurnTM

products. (Doc. No. 15-3 at 69.) GNC claims that it is entitled to use the Trisynex® mark

based on a sub-license from a third party, TriPharma. (Id. at 70.) 

GNC seeks to stay this litigation based on a recently filed arbitration proceeding

between Imagenetix and TriPharma concerning ownership rights in the Trisynex® mark. 

(Doc. No. 15.) TriPharma is a distributor and marketer of nutritional supplements. TriPharma

is not a party to this case. 

In June of 2006, Imagenetix and TriPharma entered into several distribution agreements

to allow TriPharma to distribute and market Imagenetix weight-loss products. (Doc. No. 18-3

at 5-29.) Imagenetix and TriPharma dispute whether the terms of the distribution agreements

give TriPharma the right to use and license the Trisynex® mark. (Doc. No. 15-3 at 10-13.) 

In June of 2010, Imagenetix initiated an arbitration proceeding before the Judicial

Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS). (Doc. No. 18-5 at 3.) TriPharma argued that it

had the right to use the Trisynex® mark. TriPharma also asserted a number of counterclaims

against Imagenetix, including a counterclaim for violation of the Lanham Act. (Doc. No. 18-4

at 21-22.) On September 12, 2011, the arbitrator issued an Interim Award in favor of

TriPharma’s counterclaims against Imagenetix for breach of contract, breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud. (Doc. No. 18-5 at 32-33.) The arbitrator

awarded TriPharma $2.1 million in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. 

(Id. at 33.) The arbitrator explicitly found that Imagenetix did not violate the Lanham Act, but 

///

- 2 - 12cv0089

Case 3:12-cv-00089-H-RBB Document 21 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 6
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

the arbitrator did not determine if TriPharma had rights to use or license the Trisynex® mark.

(Id. at 32.) 

On October 6, 2011, TriPharma sent a letter to the arbitrator requesting clarification on

whether TriPharma had the right to use the Trisynex® mark. (Doc. No. 18-6 at 2-7.) 

Specifically, TriPharma requested that the arbitrator “clarify in the Final Award . . . that

TriPharma has the exclusive right to use the trademark name Trisynex.” (Id. at 3.) In the Final

Award, the arbitrator denied TriPharma’s request because it “seeks more than a mere

clarification of the Interim Award . . . [and] raises a substantive issue . . . The Arbitrator

declines to consider making a substantive modification of the Interim Award absent re-opening

the Hearing.” (Doc. No. 15-2 at 79.) On March 5, 2012, the San Diego Superior Court

confirmed the arbitration award. (Doc. No. 15-3 at 8.) 

On April 25, 2012, TriPharma initiated a second JAMS arbitration proceeding against

Imagenetix to determine whether TriPharma has rights to use the Trisynex® mark. (Doc. No.

15-3 at 10-13.) In the second arbitration TriPharma asserts that it has the exclusive right to use

the Trisynex® mark based on the terms of the distribution agreements between TriPharma and

Imagenetix. (Id. at 11.) The second arbitration proceeding is currently pending. Imagenetix

and TriPharma have yet to schedule evidentiary hearings in the second arbitration. (Doc. No.

18-1 at 3.)

GNC’s present motion seeks to stay this litigation pending the outcome of the second

JAMS arbitration between Imagenetix and TriPharma. (Doc. No. 15.) GNC asserts that the

second arbitration will dispositively determine whether TriPharma possessed the right to sublicense the Trisynex® mark to GNC. Imagenetix opposes GNC’s motion. (Doc. No. 18.)

I. Legal Standard for a Motion to Stay

The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power

to control its own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am.

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the

competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be

weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX Inc.

- 3 - 12cv0089

Case 3:12-cv-00089-H-RBB Document 21 Filed 07/18/12 Page 3 of 6
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

v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These interests include: (1) the possible damage

which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may

suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms

of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

expected to result from a stay. Id. “Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be

compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the

rights of both.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; see also Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1109-1110.

II. Analysis

GNC seeks an indefinite stay in this litigation until the second arbitration between

Imagenetix and a third party, TriPharma, is fully and finally resolved. (Doc. No. 20 at 3.) 

After carefully considering the competing interests of GNC and Imagenetix, the Court declines

to stay this action. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (“Among those competing are the possible

damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party

may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms

of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

expected to result from a stay.”) (quoting CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268).

GNC argues that Imagenetix will not suffer any damage from staying this litigation

because “[m]erely waiting longer for resolution of the instant action is not itself ‘damage.’” 

(Doc. No. 15-1 at 6.) The Court disagrees. GNC does not dispute that it continues to use the

Trisynex® mark in connection with the sale and marketing of GNC’s Physio-BurnTM products. 

(Doc. No. 15-3 at 69.) In this litigation, Imagenetix is seeking damages and an injunction to

prohibit GNC from continuing its ongoing use of the Trisynex® mark. (Doc. No. 4 at 14-16.) 

Granting an indefinite stay would unduly delay Imagenetix from pursuing injunctive relief

against GNC based on its continuing use of the Trisynex® mark. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at

1112 (denying request to stay litigation where plaintiff sought injunctive relief against ongoing

and future harm).

///

///

- 4 - 12cv0089

Case 3:12-cv-00089-H-RBB Document 21 Filed 07/18/12 Page 4 of 6
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

Furthermore, the indefinite stay requested by GNC should not be granted under normal

circumstances. See Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059,

1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.”). GNC is required

to make a strong showing justifying its need for an indefinite stay. See Yong v. I.N.S., 208

F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, [courts]

require a greater showing to justify it.”). GNC acknowledges that it is not in a position to

determine TriPharma’s likelihood of success against Imagenetix in the second arbitration

proceeding. (Doc. No. 20 at 2 n.1.) Moreover, there is no way to predict whether the second

arbitration between TriPharma, who is not a party to this case, and Imagenetix will be resolved

in the near future. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir.

1979) (“A stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be

concluded within a reasonable time.”). The first arbitration between TriPharma and

Imagenetix spanned more than sixteen months and did not resolve the parties’ disputed

ownership of the Trisynex® mark. (Doc. No. 15-2 at 57-85.) The parties have just begun the

second arbitration proceeding and it is unclear how long it will take to reach a final resolution. 

Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112. Therefore, the Court concludes that GNC should not be granted

an indefinite stay because GNC has not provided a strong justification for an indefinite stay

in this case. Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119.

In addition, “Landis cautions that “if there is even a fair possibility that the stay will

work damage to some one else,” the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving

party of ‘hardship or inequity.’” Dependable Highway, 498 F.3d at 1066 (quoting Landis, 299

U.S. at 255). GNC has not made a showing of hardship or inequity. GNC’s requirement to

defend itself against Imagenetix’s claims in this suit does not justify staying this case. See

Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112 (“being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute

a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis”).

GNC argues that a stay in this case will promote judicial efficiency because the pending

second arbitration proceeding will determine whether TriPharma had a right to sub-license the

Trisynex® mark to GNC. GNC further asserts that a stay in this litigation will avoid the 

- 5 - 12cv0089

Case 3:12-cv-00089-H-RBB Document 21 Filed 07/18/12 Page 5 of 6
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

potential for this Court to reach an inconsistent result as compared to the arbitration proceeding

concerning ownership rights in the Trisynex® mark.

The Court concludes that the efficient administration of justice is best served by

denying GNC’s motion for a stay. See, e.g., Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 (“Only in rare

circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in

another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.”); see also Lockyer, 398 F.3d

at 1109-1110. Imagenetix and TriPharma cannot predict how long it will take for the recently

initiated second arbitration proceeding to reach a resolution. Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864 (“A stay

should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within

a reasonable time.”). Furthermore, Imagenetix has an interest in pursuing discovery in this

litigation to determine how GNC obtained the rights it claims to have in the Trisynex® mark. 

The Court concludes that staying this case would unduly delay Imagenetix from pursuing its

claims against GNC. See Yong, 208 F.3d at 1121 (providing that a stay would unduly burden

a party seeking relief because a stay would deny the party timely resolution of their claim). 

Accordingly, the Court denies GNC’s motion to stay this litigation.

Conclusion

After carefully reviewing the parties’ papers and arguments, the Court concludes that

the facts of this case do not justify a stay. Accordingly, the Court denies GNC’s motion to

institute a stay in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2012

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 6 - 12cv0089

Case 3:12-cv-00089-H-RBB Document 21 Filed 07/18/12 Page 6 of 6