Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01777/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01777-7/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

- 1 - 06cv1777

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLUID RX, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1777-LAB (RBB)

ORDER RECONSIDERING

DENIAL OF MOTION FOR

CONTEMPT; AND ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT

vs.

GARY W. ROY, an individual, GARY W.

ROY, doing business as GWR

SPECIALITY AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS;

ALDOSOFT ENGINEERING, a company of

unknown origin,

Defendants.

__________________________________

GARY W. ROY, an individual, and GARY

W. ROY, doing business as GWR

SPECIALTY AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS,

Counter-Claimants,

vs.

FLUID R. INC., a Delaware corporation;

RON SCHORNSTEIN, an individual; and

RON McELROY, an individual,

Counter-Defendants.

On December 18, 2006, the parties jointly moved for a preliminary injunction. On

January 9, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the joint motion and preliminarily

enjoining Defendant Gary Roy (“Roy”). As part of the injunction, Roy was ordered to either

Case 3:06-cv-01777-LAB-RBB Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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 Roy previously declared “Currently, I maintain the website fluidrx.com and have done

so continuously since I developed and registered it in January 2005.” (Am. Decl. of Roy,

filed Oct. 16, 2006, at 9:8–9.) Roy also represented that he “set up a domain name[ ]

fluidrx.com . . . ” (Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj., at 5:16–17) and that he had obtained the

fluidrx.com domain at his own expense. (Id. at 6:10–11.) However, Aldosoft was believed

to be the owner of the domain name. (Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Ex. H (printout showing owner

of domain name).)

2

 The variant “Alcosoft” is also used in the pleadings and was used in the Court’s

order of July 23, 2007.

- 2 - 06cv1777

(1) transfer the URL fluidrx.com (the “domain name”) to himself as registrant; or (2) provide

Plaintiff FluidRx, Inc. with the identity and contact information for Aldosoft.1 Control of the

website is at issue in this case. On the basis of the parties’ briefing on this issue, it is

apparent Plaintiff was concerned that Roy might conceal the ownership of the domain name,

or might transfer the domain name away from himself to defeat this Court’s ability to grant

relief.

On March 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that Defendant Gary Roy be

held in contempt for failure to abide by the preliminary injunction to which he had stipulated.

In reply, Roy countered “All contact information for Aldosoft has been and continues to be

available to FluidRX, Inc. and counsel since the inception of this suit.” (Reply in Opp’n, filed

April 3, 2007, at 2:20–21.) He then provided the contact information for “AlcoSoft Networks.”

(Id. at 2:23.) He added that this is the only contact information he has for Aldosoft, and

suggested that Plaintiff FluidRx had already made contact with Aldosoft using this contact

information.” (Id. at 3:2–4.)

Reasoning that many possible business relationships betweenAldosoft and AlcoSoft2

might explain the difference in names (e.g., Aldosoft might be a subdivision or brand of

Alcosoft, or Alcosoft might serve as the contact for Aldosoft), the Court denied Plaintiff’s

request for sanctions. (Order of July 23, 2007, at 3:27–4:4.) The Court, however, ordered

Roy to provide a written explanation to Plaintiff explaining the relationship between Aldosoft

and Alcosoft — or, if he did not know what the relationship was, an explanation of why he

was unaware of it. In so ordering, it was the Court’s intention to require Roy to provide

Plaintiff with the means to contact the current owners of the domain name. Roy made clear

Case 3:06-cv-01777-LAB-RBB Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

 This appears to be a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

4

 In speaking of ownership of the URL, the Court is accepting the terminology of the

joint motion.

- 3 - 06cv1777

he had registered the domain name and was, until he complied with the preliminary

injunction, using the website for his own business purposes. Because Roy is able to control

the content of the website, it stands to reason he would know who actually owned the

domain name, or at least he would know how to contact the owners. It is apparent that Roy

is in the best position to know who owns the domain name, but thus far has not clearly

disclosed this information.

Now, Roy appears to be arguing that when he supplied the contact information for

AlcoSoft Networks and represented it as the contact information for Aldosoft, he in fact had

no idea what connection, if any, existed between the two, and therefore had no idea whether

what he filed was accurate.3 Although Roy was only required to provide Plaintiff with an

explanation, he has gone further by providing this information to the Court as well. The

information he has provided casts doubt on his earlier representations, however, and

suggests he has not been fully candid with the Court. His declaration raises the clear

possibility that he has knowingly filed inaccurate or misleading documents with the Court,

and, rather than being unable to comply with the Preliminary Injunction, he is choosing not

to do so. In view of this, and as an exercise of its “discretion to consider its prior, non-final

decisions,” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir.

1989), the Court now RECONSIDERS its order of July 23, 2007 denying Plaintiff’s motion

to hold Roy in contempt.

The Court therefore ORDERS Roy, within seven calendar days from the date this

order is entered, to file a declaration with the Court stating the name and contact information

for the person or entity that owns the URL fluidrx.com.4 If he cannot do so, he must within

the same time limit file a declaration explaining clearly and in detail why he cannot do so,

and he must provide as much information as he knows concerning who the owner or owners

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01777-LAB-RBB Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

5 See supra note 3 and accompanying text.

- 4 - 06cv1777

are and how they may be contacted. Roy is particularly admonished to communicate plainly,

unambiguously, and candidly in his declaration. 

In view of Roy’s apparent evasiveness, Roy is also ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

why the Court should not now hold him in contempt for violating the Preliminary Injunction

by failing to either (1) transfer the URL fluidrx.com (the “domain name”) to himself as

registrant; or (2) provide Plaintiff FluidRx, Inc. with the identity and contact information for

Aldosoft. Roy is also ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for his earlier representations to the Court regarding the

contact information for Aldosoft.5

Roy may show cause by filing a memorandum, no longer than five pages in length

(not counting any appended or lodged material) no later than fourteen calendar days from

the date this order is entered. Roy is advised that he must go beyond the unsatisfactory

explanations he has thus far provided. Plaintiff may, if it wishes, file a response subject to

the same length restrictions no later than twenty-one calendar days from the date this order

is entered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01777-LAB-RBB Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 Page 4 of 4