Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06392/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06392-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

ROBERT GUICHARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, LLLP, DOES

1-1,000,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-06392 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 6, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

Case 3:06-cv-06392-JSW Document 34 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Plaintiff argues that it is the combination of words, Whisper of the Blue, and not a single

word alone that should be examined in determining whether a mark is strong. (See

Reply at 9.) However, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be prohibited from using

only one of the words of what Plaintiff maintains is his mark. How does the use of a

single word in the title of an artistic work threaten Plaintiff’s use of a composite mark in

providing information in the field of entertainment?

2. In his reply, Plaintiff contends that he does not assert trademark rights in the title of his

screenplay, but rather that he only possesses a protectable intellectual property right in

the name and use of whisperoftheblue.com by virtue of his registration of the service

mark in “providing information, via the internet, in the field of entertainment, namely,

the development, production and distribution of motion picture films.” (Declaration of

Robert Guichard, Ex. 3.) However, by this motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court

enjoin Defendant’s use of the name “Whisper” in the title of their motion picture, not

simply to refrain from using an associated domain name to provide information via the

internet. 

a. On what basis, if any, does Plaintiff contend that Defendant’s use of the

title “Whisper,” and not simply their use on the internet, infringes

Plaintiff’s service mark?

b. Why should the Court not adopt the analysis set forth in Mattel, Inc. v.

MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2002), adopting the

Rogers literary titles standard and falling outside of the Lanham Act

purview where Plaintiff seeks to enjoin use of a literary title?

3. When “a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury from a direct competitor’s ‘unfair’

act or practice invokes section 17200, the word ‘unfair’ in that section means conduct

that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of

one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the

law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Cel-Tech

Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187

(1999). The Court notes that the TRB Rules grant priority of rights similar to trademark

rights, which, as a matter of law, do not harm competition in the market associated with

the mark. See Clorox Co. v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc., 117 F.3d 50, 56 (2nd Cir. 1997)

(holding that a trademark is, by its nature, non-exclusionary, and “does not confer a

legal monopoly on any good or idea; it confers rights to a name only.”); see also

California Packing Corp. v. Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California, 165 F. Supp. 245,

250-51 (S.D. Cal. 1958) (holding that private agreement limiting the use of a certain

mark does not prevent competitor from engaging in competitive production and sales in

the market, but only restricts the use of the name, and therefore does not raise antitrust

concerns). 

On what basis does Plaintiff allege a claim against defendant for unfair business

practices in violation of California and Professions Code section 17200? 

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06392-JSW Document 34 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2