Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07028/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07028-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOTSAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC., dba

NOLAND’S ON THE WHARF and

SHORELINE SURF SHOP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE

AND VISITORS BUREAU,

Defendant /

No. C 06-7028 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/

COUNTERDEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff/counterdefendant Flotsam of California, Inc.’s (“Flotsam”)

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed November 21, 2007. Defendant/

counterclaimant Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (“the Bureau”) has filed

opposition, to which Flotsam has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision

on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 11, 2008, and rules as

follows.

Flotsam seeks summary judgment on any claim the Bureau has made herein in

which the Bureau asserts ownership of a “Surf City” mark, as opposed to the Bureau’s

claims based on the Bureau’s asserted ownership of a “Surf City USA” mark. In response,

the Bureau argues that it is not claiming herein ownership of a “Surf City” mark.

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 76 Filed 01/10/08 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

In Defendants Answer to First Amended Complaint [and] Counterclaims,” filed

February 12, 2007, the Bureau alleges in ¶ 48 that “Flotsam’s actions in designing,

manufacturing, packaging, selling, or distributing goods under the ‘Surf City’ mark, without

consent of the Bureau, constitutes false designation of origin and trademark infringement

. . . .” Although such paragraph could be interpreted as alleging the Bureau owns the mark

“Surf City,” the Bureau, on November 13, 2007, and in response to Flotsam’s stated

concern as whether such a claim was being alleged, filed a “Notice of Errata” on November

13, 2007, stating that the phrase “‘Surf City’ mark” in ¶ 48 was a typographical error, and

that the intended phrase was “‘Surf City USA’ mark.”

2

 Flotsam’s counterclaims do not allege ownership of a “Surf City” mark.1 Further,

there is no showing any discovery has occurred on any claim pertaining to a “Surf City”

mark. Finally, although Flotsam argues that, in the absence of a grant of summary

judgment on any claim based on the Bureau’s ownership of a “Surf City” mark, Flotsam

could be subject in the future to a suit in which the Bureau claims ownership of a “Surf City”

mark, the Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve a matter not raised by the instant pleadings.

See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F. 3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc) (holding federal courts may not “issue advisory opinions” or “declare rights in

hypothetical cases”).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 76 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2