Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01972/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01972-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANEL INC., et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TONY BOSINI, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1972 BZ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

Before the Court is defendant’s motion to strike

plaintiff’s request for the transfer of certain domain names

from the complaint. 

"[A] motion to strike may be used to strike any part of

the prayer for relief when the damages sought are not

recoverable as a matter of law." Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922

F.Supp. 1450, 1479, n. 34 (C.D.Cal.1996). Motions to strike

are generally viewed with disfavor and are not frequently

granted. See Clement v. American Greetings Corp., 636 F.Supp.

1326, 1329 (S.D.Cal.,1986). Courts must view the pleading

under attack in the light most favorable to the pleader. 

Bureerong, 922 F.Supp. at 1462. 

Case 3:09-cv-01972-BZ Document 44 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 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

1 Section 1125(d) prohibits cybersquatting and

authorizes the transfer of domain names as a remedy.

2 “Once a right and a violation have been shown, the

scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past

wrongs is broad[.]” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. Of

Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971).

2

Defendant’s sole argument in support of his motion is

that plaintiff did not allege a violation of 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(d).1

 However, defendant did not argue or persuade me

that Section 1125(d) is the exclusive means by which a court

can transfer domain names in the exercise of its inherent

equitable powers. For example, defendant has not responded to

plaintiff’s argument that it may seek the requested relief

under 15 U.S.C. § 1116. 

The balance of defendant’s motion discounts the

applicability of Philip Morris USA, Inc. V. Otamedia Limited,

331 F.Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). While it may be true that

plaintiff’s proof will not rise to the level found in Philip

Morris, that case undermines defendant’s position that such

relief is unavailable as a matter of law.2 

Defendant has not established that plaintiff is not

entitled to the relief it seeks “as a matter of law.” 

Bureerong, 922 F.Supp. at 1479, n. 34. Defendant’s motion to

strike is therefore DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file an

answer by FEBRUARY 5, 2010.

Dated: January 19, 2010 

 

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CHANEL V. BOSINI\ORDER DENYING MOT TO STRIKE.FINAL.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01972-BZ Document 44 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2