Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04551/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04551-0/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

WHAM-O, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SLB TOYS USA, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-04551 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities 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 Court tentatively GRANTS SLB’s motion to transfer. The parties each shall have

fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

1. Does SLB agree that it has the burden to establish transfer is warranted?

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 18 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2. Does Wham-O agree that this case could have been brought in the Central

District of California?

3. Does Wham-O agree that when the merits of this case are addressed, the fact

finder will be required to assess the “Wave Rider” mark in its entirety and as it

appears in the marketplace? 

a. If so, and given that the “Wave Rider” is a product in the “SLIP N’

SLIDE” product line, why would the marks at issue in the Central District

litigation not be relevant to Wham-O’s claims in this case?

b. If not, what authority does Wham-O have to support its position?

4. What is Wham-O’s response to the arguments raised in SLB’s reply that it

(Wham-O) is likely to take inconsistent positions regarding the strength of its

marks?

Dated: September 27, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04551-JSW Document 18 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2