Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01443/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01443-6/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAMCY ALGHAZZY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01443-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND STRIKE

[Re: ECF 48]

Defendant asserts four counterclaims against Plaintiff in this action: violation of

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), promissory estoppel, and two requests for 

declaratory relief that Defendant does not infringe Plaintiff’s trademarks or copyrights. ECF 47

(“Counterclaims”). Plaintiff has moved to dismiss the first two claims and to strike the claims for 

declaratory relief. Mot., ECF 48. The Court heard argument on this motion on May 12, 2016. For 

the reasons stated on the record and below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion with leave to 

amend.

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek 

v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court “need not, 

however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by 

exhibit.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff raises serious problems with Defendant’s claims. First, Plaintiff challenges the 

Case 5:15-cv-01443-BLF Document 54 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

UCL claim for failure to plead any injury. See Reply at 3-5, ECF 51. “[O]nly plaintiffs who have 

suffered actual damage may pursue a private UCL action.” Peterson v. Cellco P'ship, 164 Cal. 

App. 4th 1583, 1590 (2008) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17204). “A private plaintiff must make a 

twofold showing: he or she must demonstrate injury in fact and a loss of money or property caused 

by unfair competition.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff is correct that Defendant fails to plead either element. Defendant alleges 

that he sold a product to Plaintiff’s agent because the agent misrepresented his identity, see 

Counterclaims ¶¶ 20-28, 32, but Defendant fails to identify a resulting injury, such as lost money 

or property, much less a causal link between an injury and Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the UCL claim.

Plaintiff next argues that Defendant similarly fails to plead a central element of his 

promissory estoppel claim, which requires allegations of: “(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in 

its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) his reliance must be both 

reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his 

reliance.” Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1159 (N.D. Cal. 2013) 

(citing Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 60 Cal. App. 3d 885, 890 (1976)). 

Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant fails to sufficiently plead the first element. Mot. at 

12-15. While Defendant alleges that Plaintiff “clearly and unambiguously promised . . . that 

[Defendant] could re-sell Adobe products,” Counterclaims ¶ 35, the exhibits he attaches to his 

Counterclaims—three exchanges that he represents as examples of Plaintiff’s promises, see id. ¶¶ 

14, 15, 19; see also id. Exhs. 1, 2, and 4, ECF 47-1, 47-2, 47-4—belie this allegation. In the 

November 2008 exchange, for example, an Adobe representative writes, “I can only give approval 

for the items whose images I was able to view. I can’t give a blanket approval for all products 

based on the representative sample.” Id. Exh. 1 at 11. Similarly, in 2009, Adobe writes, “Please 

note that Adobe has verified the authenticity of the above software only and is only authorizing 

you to relist the product(s) specified above. More specifically, [this] should not be construed as a 

blanket authorization for all of your eBay auction listings.” Id. Exh. 2. At 2. In light of these 

express limitations on the alleged permission, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 

Case 5:15-cv-01443-BLF Document 54 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

the promissory estoppel claim.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s claims for declaratory relief as redundant. 

Mot. at 17-19. “The court may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, 

or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Finding that Defendant’s claims for declaratory relief 

are mirror images of Plaintiff’s affirmative claims and that they seek the same relief as 

Defendant’s affirmative defenses, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

Notwithstanding the Court’s serious reservations about Defendant’s ability to cure the 

deficiencies identified above, the Court GRANTS Defendant leave to amend each of his claims 

because he has not yet had such an opportunity. Plaintiff shall file his amended counterclaims by 

no later than June 2, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01443-BLF Document 54 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 3