Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01577/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01577-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 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

GALLUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUSINESS RESEARCH BUREAU (PVT.)

LTD., d/b/a GALLUP PAKISTAN, IJAZ

SHAFI GILANI, GALLUP BUSINESS

RESEARCH SERVICES (PVT.) LTD.,

d/b/a PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01577 WHA

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY

On February 11, 2010, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for (1) lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction over defendants’ alleged Lanham Act

violations in Pakistan and (2) lack of evidentiary support for the alleged Lanham Act violations

occurring within the United States (Dkt. No. 112). Plaintiff timely responded on February 26

(Dkt. No. 113). Having reviewed plaintiff’s response, the Court orders as follows:

Plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct additional discovery is granted. It must proceed,

however, in two stages. First, plaintiff shall, at its own expense, depose defendant Gilani in

Pakistan on the limited discovery issues discussed herein. Topics for the deposition shall include

the nature of defendants’ business connections with the United States (as seen in the “Clients”

section of the Gallup Pakistan website), Gilani’s activities at the 2007 Chicago convention, and

the paper allegedly presented at the 2007 convention bearing the GALLUP PAKISTAN logo. 

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 115 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

* No discovery will be allowed on Gilani’s appearance at the 2008 convention. 

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion provided absolutely no evidentiary support that any

GALLUP marks were used by defendant at the 2008 convention in San Francisco to rebut

Gilani’s sworn declaration stating otherwise (see Dkt. No. 106 at 5–6). The only citation

provided by plaintiff with respect to the 2008 convention was an admission by defendant

Gilani in his answer that he participated in the 2008 convention. Participating in a

convention does not prove infringement. There is no admission or evidence in the record

that Gilani used any of plaintiff’s marks during his appearance in 2008.

2

Plaintiff may also inquire into whether Gilani’s polling practices extend or extended into the

United States, as alleged in their response (Dkt. No. 113 at 4–5). Defendant Gilani’s sworn

testimony on these matters will help to ensure that a complete record for both sides is established. 

Defendant Gilani shall make himself available for such a deposition before the close of the

limited discovery period.

If and only if plaintiff successfully completes the court-ordered deposition of Gilani, the

following additional discovery will be allowed. Plaintiff will be granted leave to conduct further

discovery pertaining to the extent of defendants’ “business connections” with the United States. 

Discovery on this issue shall be limited to the nature of “research support” defendants provide (or

have provided) to academic institutions (e.g. MIT and Harvard) in the United States, as noted in

the “Clients” section of the Gallup Pakistan website (Dkt. No. 113 at 4). Additionally, if and only

if plaintiff successfully completes the deposition of Gilani, plaintiff may conduct further

discovery pertaining to defendant Gilani’s alleged use of plaintiff’s GALLUP marks while

presenting at the 2007 Chicago convention.* With respect to this 2007 convention appearance,

this order emphasizes that the evidence showing that defendant used any GALLUP marks while

in Chicago is tenuous at best. Also, it must be emphasized that plaintiff’s summary judgment

brief provided misleading citations to the record for these allegations. For example, plaintiff cited

to the complaint and answer to support the assertion that defendant Gilani discussed Gallup

Pakistan poll results while attending the 2007 conference (see Dkt. No. 106 at 5–6, citing Compl.

¶¶ 40–41 and Ans. ¶¶ 40–41). In his answer, however, Gilani denied those particular allegations

(see Ans. ¶¶ 40–41). There was no admission. As such, the only evidence plaintiff has presented

to the Court to support its allegation that Gilani used its marks at the 2007 Chicago convention is

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 115 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

the existence of a published paper bearing the GALLUP PAKISTAN mark that may or may not

have existed at the time of the convention. Plaintiff needs more than this to take the issue to the

jury.

Plaintiff’s deposition of Gilani must be completed no later than by APRIL 23, 2010. 

Plaintiff shall file a notice with the Court once this deposition has been completed. Only after

this notice has been filed may the second stage of discovery proceed. All discovery allowed by

this order must be completed by MAY 14, 2010. Renewed motions for summary judgment must

be filed by THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010. Both sides are invited to file such motions. Given this

limited discovery, plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate that evidence

supports the extension of the Lanham Act to defendants’ alleged infringing acts overseas, and that

there is sufficient evidentiary support for the alleged infringing acts that occurred at the 2007

Chicago convention. At the very least, plaintiff may show that a trial on the merits is warranted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 115 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3