Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05122/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05122-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

*E-FILED 11/1/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BERCUT-VANDERVOORT & CO., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAISON TARRIDE LEDROIT & CIE,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-5122 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. (“BVC”) and defendant Maison Tarride Ledroit & Cie

(“MTL”) are an American company and a French company, respectively, that were formed a halfcentury ago, primarily for the purpose of importing into and selling French wines in the United

States. The two companies, which once had overlapping ownership, are now in the hands of new

owners, and the business relationship between them has ended. This action arises from a dispute as

to which of the two companies is the rightful owner of various trademarks that were developed for

the wines during the time the two companies were working together.

MTL moves to compel further production of documents that BVC has refused to produce on

grounds of relevance or privilege. The motion was heard on November 1, 2006. Based on the

parties’ briefing, the arguments of counsel, and the record herein, the motion will be granted in part,

and denied in part.

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 8
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

 II. BACKGROUND

BVC traces its roots to 1946, when Henry van der Voort began importing wines to this

country from France. According to BVC, around 1958 Mr. van der Voort and a French colleague

formed MTL, “for the purpose of facilitating BVC’s importation of French wine.” For several

decades, the two companies worked closely together, pursuant to a series of written contracts that

provided for an exclusive relationship, with certain narrow exceptions.

BVC contends that Mr. van der Voort personally created all of the brand names for the wines

that BVC was importing, that he designed the bottle labels, and that he incorporated his family coat

of arms into many of the labels. In 1970, Mr. van der Voort sold his shares of MTL to a Swiss

entity, Satellis, S.A., which already controlled MTL. Beginning shortly thereafter, MTL and Satellis

filed trademark registrations for the van der Voort coat of arms and the brand names of the wines

that BVC was importing. BVC asserts that Mr. van der Voort “consented” to this as a matter of

“convenience,” because he believed that the parties understood that BVC remained the “true owner”

of the marks. 

In 1997, Mr. van der Voort, then 82 years old, was preparing to sell BVC and his other

businesses. In connection with those plans, BVC and MTL entered into a further ten year written

contract memorializing their “exclusive relationship.” Shortly thereafter, Mr. van der Voort sold

BVC to his distributor, Hugues de Vernou.

Under Mr. de Vernou’s ownership of BVC, it and MTL almost immediately began to dispute

which of them was the owner of the trademarks rights in the wines. Nevertheless, the parties

continued operating under the contract providing for an exclusive relationship between them. By

1995, however, the relationship had become “unworkable,” and BVC exercised its right under the

parties’ written agreement to terminate. Thereafter, MTL began using another Untied States

distributor to sell the wine brands it had previously sold exclusively through BVC. In December of

2005, BVC filed this action, contending that it is the true owner of the trademarks for the wines it

had been importing through MTL.

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 8
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

1

 For example, MTL seeks documents reflecting communications BVC has had with MTL or

others regarding the BVC marks, advertising and marketing of the BVC marks, expenditures relating

to the BVC marks, “maintenance” of the marks, and quality control efforts for goods sold under the

marks.

2

 Indeed, the Sengoku factors do not even come into play except to rebut a presumption of

trademark ownership that arises in the absence of an agreement and when neither party can prove

that it initially owned the mark. 96 F.3d at 1220-21.

3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Documents Related to BVC’s “Own” Marks–Request Nos. 7, 10, 14, 16, 19, and 20

There is no dispute that BVC is the sole owner of a number of trademarks other than the

marks that are the subject of this litigation (“the BVC marks”). MTL has propounded several

document requests seeking information related to how BVC has treated the BVC marks.1

 BVC

refuses to produce responsive documents, arguing that its treatment of the BVC marks is wholly

irrelevant to the question of who owns the marks in dispute in this action. 

To support its argument that the BVC marks are irrelevant, BVC cites the factors listed in

Sengoku Works, Ltd. v. RMC Int’l Ltd, 96 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1996) for evaluating disputes

between manufacturers and distributors over trademark ownership. BVC correctly points out that

none of those factors relate to how one party may treat any other trademarks that it undisputedly

owns. As BVC acknowledges, however, the Sengoku factors are applied to resolve disputes “in the

absence of an agreement.” See Sengoku, 96 F.3d at 1221 (“The court must first look to any

agreement or acknowledgment between the parties regarding trademark rights.”)2

 BVC fails to

recognize that in this case it is alleging that the parties had an agreement– an express and/or implied

“understanding”– that BVC was at all times the true owner of the marks, and that MTL or Satellis

filed the registrations merely as a matter of “convenience.”

A crucial factual dispute in this action, therefore, is whether any such agreement or

“understanding” actually existed. Probative of that question is whether BVC’s conduct has been

consistent with its purported belief that it was always the true owner of the disputed marks. In these

circumstances, BVC’s treatment of the BVC marks is relevant, because if BVC treated the disputed

marks significantly differently than it treated the BVC marks, that might support an inference by the

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 8
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

3

 At oral argument, BVC insisted that even for the purposes of evaluating whether the

parties had an implied agreement or “understanding,” the only relevant evidence would relate to the

parties’ conduct towards each other and how they each treated the disputed marks. BVC’s claim,

however, is that it owned the disputed marks. A comparison between how BVC treated marks it

undisputedly owned and how it treated the undisputed marks, could assist a trier of fact in weighing

the credibility of that claim.

4

 The parties resolved their disputes as to request no. 9 after the motion was filed. The Court

expresses no opinion as to whether MTL had reason to include that request in the motion, but notes

that the obligation to meet and confer with respect to any issue that can be resolved without Court

intervention is always ongoing, even after a discovery motions has been filed.

4

trier of fact that BVC did not actually believe it was the true owner of the disputed marks.3

To be sure, if BVC actually treated the disputed marks in that fashion, it will not be

precluded from arguing to the trier of fact that the differing treatment is consistent with its claim that

the arrangement was one of convenience, and that the differing treatment resulted only from the

identity of the registering party, with no bearing on actual ownership. BVC’s right to argue to a

fact-finder that any differences in treatment are irrelevant, however, does not translate into a viable

relevancy objection in discovery that would relieve it from producing responsive documents.

Finally, BVC has made no claim that production of responsive documents would be

burdensome or is otherwise objectionable. While production of wholly irrelevant documents

arguably is always an undue burden, where there is at least some potential relevance, production

generally will be required absent some additional showing of burdensomeness or other factor

militating against requiring it. Accordingly, BVC shall produce all non-privileged documents in it

possession, custody or control that are responsive to request nos. 7, 10, 14, 16, 19, and 20.4

B. Documents Related to Disputes Between BVC’s Current Owner and Mr. van der 

Voort–Request No. 29

As noted above, in 1997, Mr. van der Voort sold BVC to Mr. de Vernou. In 2004, Mr. de

Vernou sued Mr. van der Voort in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging fraud in connection

with the sale. In particular, it appears that Mr. de Vernou took the position that Mr. van der Voort

had misrepresented the extent to which the ten-year exclusive distributorship agreement between 

BVC and MTL gave BVC exclusive rights to sell “Chateau Magdelaine” brand wines in the United

States. According to Mr. de Vernou’s complaint, unknown to him was the fact that BVC’s exclusive

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

rights to sell Chateau Magdelaine was terminable if Mr. van der Voort sold his interests in BVC.

The de Vernou–van der Voort litigation was settled. MTL now requests all documents

relating to that dispute or any disputes between Mr. de Vernou and Mr. van der Voort regarding the

sale of BVC, on the theories that either, (1) there may have been friction between the two over the

fact that ownership of the marks in dispute here was not clear, and/or (2) the settlement of the de

Vernou–van der Voort litigation may have included an agreement that he would cooperate with

BVC in this action, such that his credibility is in question.

BVC is willing to produce any documents related to “any dispute Mr. van der Voort and Mr.

de Vernou may have had related to the sale of BVC and the trademarks at issue.” BVC represents

that it agrees that even settlement documents from the de Vernou–van der Voort litigation would be

relevant and would be subject to production if they showed that Mr. van der Voort agreed to

cooperate in BVC’s efforts to establish its ownership of the trademarks.

BVC appears to be representing that there simply are no documents relating to disputes

between Mr. de Vernou and Mr. van der Voort as to what Mr. de Vernou was told about ownership

of the disputed marks, and that Mr. van der Voort did not promise in the settlement agreement to

cooperate with BVC in this dispute. The relevance test in discovery however, is simply that requests

be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Here, it is reasonable to assume that documents about any disputes between Mr. de Vernou and Mr.

van der Voort might contain admissible evidence, or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,

having a bearing on BVC’s contention that the parties had an “understanding” as to where true

ownership of the marks in dispute rests. Again, BVC has identified no undue burden or other basis

to warrant relieving it from responding to this request as framed. Under these circumstances, BVC’s

unilateral determination that responsive documents are not “relevant” will not suffice. Accordingly,

BVC shall produce all non-privileged documents in it possession, custody or control that are

responsive to request no. 29.

C. Documents Related to the Hiaring Letter–Requests Nos. 24 through 27

On June 21, 1999, after this dispute over ownership of the trademarks had arisen, and after

Mr. de Vernou had purchased BVC, he traveled to France and met with the managing director of

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 5 of 8
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 5

 Mr. de Boisredon is a nephew of Mr. van der Voort. 

6

MTL, Phillippe de Boisredon.5

 Mr. de Vernou handed Mr. de Boisredon a letter dated May 4, 1999,

written to BVC by its attorney, Anne Hiaring, opining that BVC is the true owner of the disputed

marks. Mr. de Vernou now contends that he turned over that letter “inadvertently,” and that he

intended only to provide Mr. de Boisredon a “very similar” letter dated June 11, 1999, written by

Ms. Hiaring and addressed directly to MTL. Mr. de Boisderon declares that he was not given the

June 11th letter and that he is “positive” that Mr. de Vernou knew he was turning over a letter

addressed to BVC, not MTL, “based on comments” Mr. de Vernou made. 

MTL now contends that by turning over the May 4th letter from its own attorney, BVC

waived all attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject matter discussed therein. MTL

further asserts that the averments of the complaint in this action have “striking similarities” to the

assertions of the May 4th letter.

The record does not support a conclusion that BVC waived all attorney-client privilege or

work product protection with respect to the matters discussed in the Hiaring letter. BVC is correct

that there is little, if any, substantive difference, between the May letter addressed to BVC and the

June letter addressed to MTL. Each sets forth Ms. Hiaring’s theories as to why ownership of the

disputed marks rests with BVC Neither contains any disclosure of perceived weaknesses in BVC’s

case. MTL does not, and could not, argue that the June letter constitutes a waiver of the privilege–a

party is entitled to present its attorney’s arguments to the opposing side without that constituting a

waiver. The fact that BVC apparently initially presented those same arguments in a letter that

happened to be addressed to itself rather than to MTL does not justify requiring BVC to reveal now

all of its attorney-client confidences to MTL, particularly given that the record is not clear as to

whether the disclosure was intentional. Accordingly, the motion to compel further production as to

request nos. 24-27 is denied.

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 6 of 8
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 ORDER 

C 05-5122 JF (RS) 

7

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted to the extent set forth above, and is otherwise denied. BVC

shall produce further documents as required by this order within 20 days of this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 7 of 8
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 ORDER 

C 05-5122 JF (RS) 

8

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Lila Inayat Bailey lbailey@perkinscoie.com

Anne Elizabeth Kearns akearns@kksrr.com, alau@kksrr.com

Kenneth E. Keller kkeller@kksrr.com, alau@kksrr.com

Michael H. Rubin mrubin@perkinscoie.com, eeberline@perkinscoie.com

Kenneth B. Wilson kwilson@perkinscoie.com, eeberline@perkinscoie.com;

sshanberg@perkinscoie.com; wriggs@perkinscoie.com; lbailey@perkinscoie.com;

dhellmoldt@perkinscoie.com; mrubin@perkinscoie.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 11/1/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 52 Filed 11/01/06 Page 8 of 8