Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01200/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01200-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JZCHAK N. WAJCMAN d.b.a. BILL

LAWRENCE PRODUCTS and d.b.a. BILL

LAWRENCE GUITAR PICKUPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLI LORENZ STICH,

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.05CV1200-LSP

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S

ALLEGED FAILURE TO TAKE

ACTION WITH THE U.S.P.T.O. AS

REQUIRED UNDER THE PARTIES’

SETTLEMENT (Doc. No. 159)

Pursuant to the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement Defendant and CounterPlaintiff Willi Lorenz Stich seeks sanctions be imposed as to Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Jzchak

Wajcman, contending Mr. Wajcman violated the parties’ settlement by failing to timely suspend or

withdraw his trademark registration application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(“USPTO”). Briefing has been submitted by both parties. (Doc. 159, 160, 162 and 163). 

DISCUSSION

The parties to this action are former business partners with a decades long history of joint or

overlapping commercial activity in guitar pickup and related products and services businesses that are

associated with the trade name “Bill Lawrence.” Mr. Stich, who owns a registered service mark for Bill

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 166 Filed 12/22/08 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

2

Lawrence, claims the name as his own. Mr. Wajcman, on the other hand, claims he acquired exclusive

rights to the “Bill Lawrence” trademark and trade name. In addition to the claims made in this lawsuit,

Mr. Wajcman initiated filings with the USPTO asserting rights to “Bill Lawrence.” Mr. Wajcman

initiated a cancellation proceeding against Mr. Stich’s registered service mark and also made his own

application for trademark registration.

After two years of contentious litigation and a settlement agreement between the parties that

failed before it could be finalized the parties were referred to this Court for a settlement conference in

early 2007. Extensive settlement discussions between the parties resulted in an agreement on May 10,

2007. The terms were recited on the record and the parties’ stipulated to the Court’s jurisdiction to

interpret and enforce the agreement. (Doc. 131).

In general terms the parties agreed to settle the claims made against one another in this action by

striking a deal whereby each would continue to use the name “Bill Lawrence” in a limited defined

capacity. The concept was that both parties would continue to do business and would co-exist in a noncompetitive manner. Each would promote his respective products or services in such a manner and in

the case of Mr. Wajcman with certain d.b.a. designations and disclaimers, so as to minimize confusion

in the marketplace. Mr. Stich retained rights to his federally registered service mark Bill Lawrence,

including the right to enforce that mark with respect to services. Settlement Agreement, para. 1. The

parties further agreed that Mr. Wajcman owns common law trademark rights to “Bill Lawrence” and has

the exclusive right to enforce his rights with respect to products. Id., para. 8, 11. 

Pursuant to the settlement, Mr. Wajcman was required to withdraw with prejudice the cancellation proceeding he had initiated against Mr. Stich’s service mark. Id., para 14. He also agreed to

suspend his pending trademark application for “Bill Lawrence” and, in the event the USPTO did not

allow the suspension, he would withdraw his application without prejudice. Id., para. 15. 

I. Mr. Wajcman Shall Withdraw His Trademark Application Within 14 Days

Mr. Stich claims Mr. Wajcman has breached the settlement because he has not withdrawn his

trademark application and, instead, argues the merits of his application in filings with the USPTO, citing

to a submission by Mr. Wajcman’s counsel to the USPTO made on July 27, 2007. [Defendant’s Ex. C]. 

These arguments were raised by Mr. Stich nearly a year ago. On March 5, 2008, after briefing by the

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 166 Filed 12/22/08 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

parties and a seven and a half hour hearing regarding this and other alleged violations, the Court found

Mr. Wajcman had breached both paragraphs 14 and 15 of the agreement by failing to timely take all

required action with regard to the USPTO actions. (Doc. 142). Because Mr. Stich failed to establish he

sustained any economic injury as a result of this delay, no sanctions were imposed. Id.

Mr. Stich’s arguments largely echo the arguments that were previously considered. As was the

case before, he does not establish Mr. Wajcman’s breach resulted in any economic injury. Although the

Court does not condone Mr. Wajcman’s behavior, Mr. Stich’s arguments do not offer any new evidence

of a breach or a basis for an award of sanctions. 

 The Court observes the USPTO issued an office action on Dec. 2, 2008, after briefing was

received by the parties, denying Mr. Wajcman’s request for a suspension pursuant to the settlement

agreement. Mr. Wajcman is ordered, therefore, to seek withdrawal of his application within fourteen

calendar days from the date of entry of this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to timely comply

with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $100 per day. 

 II. Jurisdiction over the Parties’ Settlement Will Cease in Six Months

When the parties entered in to their agreement, it was the Court’s belief they intended to resolve

for once and for all their differences. Since that time, both have repeatedly demonstrated that neither

has any interest in abiding by the terms of their settlement. Instead they have elected from the outset to

continue their long standing dispute, utilizing the Court’s jurisdiction to do so. 

Despite having recited the settlement terms on the record, the parties were unable to agree upon

a written version. After nearly eight months of “back and forth,” their dispute necessitated a lengthy

hearing to resolve their outstanding differences. Since then, the parties have returned to the Court again

and again contending violations by the other. Both parties have alleged the other’s use of “Bill

Lawrence” breaches their agreement. Mr. Stich complains of Mr. Wajcman’s dilatory practices with the

USPTO actions, whereas, Mr. Wajcman has alleged Mr. Stich breached the agreement by filing lawsuits

against several of Mr. Wajcman’s clients. Both also charge the other fails to meet and confer in good

faith prior to bringing allegations regarding compliance to the Court’s attention. 

While not all the allegations have merit, the Court has found evidence of unclean hands by both

sides. In addition to finding Mr. Wajcman failed to take timely action with regard to the USPTO

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 166 Filed 12/22/08 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

1

 In addition to the innumerable calls, emails and personal visits, the parties’ unwillingness to abide by

their settlement has necessitated extensive briefing, numerous hearings and countless hours of the Court’s time.

Hearings were held on January 7, 2008 (lasting 2 hours 15 minutes), March 5, 2008 (7 1⁄2 hours), and September

11, 2008 (1 hour 20 minutes) and September 17, 2008, and the parties have requested further briefing and

hearings regarding additional alleged violations.

4

actions, the Court ruled Mr. Wajcman’s marketing and sales practices breached paragraphs 19, 21, and

22 of the agreement. (Doc. 142). Mr. Stich has also breached the settlement through his use of “Bill

Lawrence.” (Doc. 144). Furthermore, both parties consistently fail to comply with their obligation to

meet and confer regarding their differences.

The parties have demonstrated they can not coexist in society or commerce. Neither has

displayed any inclination, willingness or intention of laying to rest their long running feud. They have

made no effort to try to live in peace with each other as they represented to the Court and each other

they would do as part of the settlement. Instead they have done just the opposite. They have elected to

use the settlement and the Court’s jurisdiction as a tool to vex and irritate the other party and in the

process, have consumed copious amounts of time and wasted judicial resources.1

 The Court has

exhausted its patience and willingness to referee the continued and mean-spirited bickering between the

parties and will not continue to preside indefinitely as the arbiter of the parties’ vendetta. Therefore, the

parties are advised the Court will continue in its current capacity until July 31, 2009. Thereafter, the

Court will no longer exercise jurisdiction over the parties and their settlement. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Stich’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Mr. Wajcman is ordered

to seek withdrawal of his application for trademark registration of “Bill Lawrence” within fourteen

calendar days from the date of entry of this order. Any further violations of this nature may result in the

imposition of sanctions in the amount of $100 per violation. 

DATED: December 22, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 166 Filed 12/22/08 Page 4 of 4