Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00102/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00102-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
All Star Driving School
Counter Claimant
Allstars School of Driving
Plaintiff
Gary Embree
Counter Claimant
Kimberly Embree
Counter Claimant
Marivel Galicia
Defendant
PDL, Inc.
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PDL, Inc., d/b/a ALLSTARS SCHOOL

OF DRIVING,

NO. CIV. S-07-0102 WBS GGH

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ALL STAR DRIVING SCHOOL, GARY

EMBREE, KIMBERLY EMBREE, AND 

MARIVEL GALICIA, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff PDL, Inc., d/b/a Allstars School of Driving

(“Allstars”) brought this action alleging trademark infringement

and various other state and federal claims stemming from

defendants All Star Driving School’s (“All Star”) use of the “All

Star Driving School” mark. Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary

injunction against defendants’ continued use of the allegedly

infringing mark.

///

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Examples of the keywords bid on by Allstars are 1

“Sacramento Drivers School,” “Folsom Drivers School,” “Roseville

Drivers School,” etc. (Wright Decl. ¶ 11.) When a consumer

types one of these keywords into a search engine, the page

listing the search results will contain an advertisement for

Allstars’ services with a link to their online education

services. 

2

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Allstars is a California corporation founded

in 1985 with its principal place of business in San Jose,

California. (Wright Decl. ¶ 2.) Allstars is licensed by the

California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) to provide driver

education and training, and since 1985 has been offering and

delivering such training in San Jose, Fremont, Morgan Hill, and

Los Gatos. (Id. ¶ 4.) Since its formation, Allstars has

provided driver education to approximately 400,000 students. 

(Id.) Allstars uses “Allstars School of Driving” as its trade

name and service mark, promoting its services under that name in 

San Jose, Fremont, Morgan Hill, and Los Gatos via newspapers,

telephone books, local circulars, at high schools, and on the

radio. (Id.) Since 1996, Allstars has also promoted its

services under that mark on its website located at “allstarssanjose.com.” (Id. ¶ 8.)

In addition, since January, 2003, Allstars has offered

internet-based online driver education. (Id. ¶ 9.) These

services have been promoted, under the “Allstars School of

Driving” mark, by targeting consumers in particular areas

throughout California by bidding on geographically-specific

keywords from online search engines. (Id. ¶ 10.) Between 1

January, 2003, and July, 2003, Allstars sold online driver

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Defendants’ license to provide driver training services 2

was not issued until September, 2003. However, while All Star

began promoting their business in July, 2003, they did not

actually provide in-car driver training until they were properly

licensed. (Embree Decl. ¶ 5.)

3

education services to several hundred Sacramento area residents. 

(Id. ¶ 14.) In March, 2004, Allstars began providing on-the-road

training to greater Sacramento area consumers, and in July, 2005,

it opened an office in Rocklin, California. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Defendant All Star Driving School (“All Star”), owned

and operated by defendants Gary and Kimberly Embree, began

offering driver education and training in the Sacramento area in

July, 2003. (Embree Decl. ¶ 5.) Since that time, defendants 2

have actively promoted their business under the trade name “All

Star Driving School” in telephone books, local circulars,

internet “yellowpages,” and beginning in 2004 through its website

located at “driveallstar.com.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Since July, 2003,

defendants have provided driver education and training services

to approximately 800 consumers in Sacramento, El Dorado, Amador,

Placer, Sutter, and Yolo counties. (Id. ¶ 7.)

On January 16, 2007, plaintiff filed this action based

on defendants’ use of the “All Star Driving School” mark,

alleging: 1) trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); 2)

false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); 3) trademark

infringement (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14320); 4) common law

trademark infringement; 5) unfair competition and “passing off”;

and 6) injury to business reputation. (Compl.) Plaintiff now

asks this court to enjoin defendants from any and all continued

use of the “All Star Driving School” mark.

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party

must demonstrate either (1) probable success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships sharply favors

the moving party. These are not separate tests, but are the ends

of a continuum; the greater the relative hardship to the moving

party, the less probability of success must be shown.” Nat’l

Ctr. for Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 743 F.2d 1365, 1369

(9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations omitted). “Irreparable

injury may be presumed from a showing of likelihood of success on

the merits of a trademark infringement claim.” Brookfield

Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1066 (9th

Cir. 1999) (citing Metro Pub., Ltd. v. San Jose Mercury News, 987

F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1993)). For trademark infringement, the

inquiry thus conflates the two prongs “into the single question

of whether the plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the

merits.” GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205

n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).

B. Laches

Defendants argue that plaintiff is prohibited from

bring this action by the doctrine of laches. Laches may bar a

trademark infringement claim when plaintiff unreasonably delays

bringing suit. E-Systems, Inc. v. Monitek, Inc., 720 F.2d 604,

607 (9th Cir. 1983). Although plaintiff alleges that it began

providing on-the-road training in the greater Sacramento as early

as March of 2004, and opened an office in Rocklin in July of

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 7
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

2005, plaintiff curiously alleges that it did not become aware of

defendants’ company until more than a year later. However, there

is no evidence in the record that plaintiff had knowledge, either

real or constructive (i.e. through registration of the mark),

prior to when asserted. Nor had there been any showing that

plaintiff engaged in any knowing delay, and plaintiff appears to

have been reasonably diligent in protecting his mark, bringing

this action shortly after learning of defendants’ company. 

(Ballard Decl. Ex. C.)

C. Voluntary Cessation

In their opposition to this motion, defendants indicate

that they have begun the process of changing their company name

to “Freedom Driving School,” including: changing the name on

their business license; re-labeling their business assets; reregistering with the DMV; placing a prominent link on

“driveallstar.com” that redirects to “drivewithfreedom.com;” and

changing the outgoing message on their business answering machine

to reflect the change in name. (Embree Decl. ¶¶ 11-15.) 

Plaintiff, nevertheless, reasserts its request for an injunction. 

Particularly because defendants’ promotional efforts continue to

make mention of the “All Star” mark, plaintiff’s motion is not

moot. See also Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179

F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting the well settled practice

that an action for an injunction does not become moot merely

because the conduct complained of was terminated, if there is a

possibility of recurrence).

D. Probability of Success on the Merits

The core element of trademark infringement is whether

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

customers would be confused between the protected and the

allegedly infringing mark. Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v.

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2006); Official Airline

Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Although the list of factors is not exhaustive, and the test is a

pliant one depending on the circumstances of each specific case,

in determining whether customer confusion exists, the court looks

to the following factors: 1) strength of the mark; 2) proximity

of the goods; 3) similarity of the marks; 4) evidence of actual

confusion; 5) marketing channels used; 6) type of goods and the

degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser; 7)

defendants’ intent in selecting the mark; and 8) likelihood of

expansion of the product lines. 

Upon consideration of the Sleekcraft factors, this

court finds that there is a likelihood of customer confusion

stemming from defendants’ use of the “All Star” mark. While not

dispositive, this conclusion is bolstered by defendants’

counterclaims, which are based on many of the same assertions put

forth by plaintiff in support of this motion, as to the

similarity of the marks, proximity of the goods, actual confusion

encountered, and similarity of the marketing channels used. 

(Defs’ Counterclaim ¶¶ 18, 22, 23.) In a trademark infringement

action, irreparable harm is presumed, and plaintiff has

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly,

the court will grant plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for

a preliminary injunction be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

Pending the entry of final judgment in this action, upon the

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

posting by plaintiff of security in the amount of $2,500.00,

defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees,

attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation

with them are hereby enjoined from (1) using the phrase

“Allstars” or “All Star” as the name or part of the name of any

business, or in a trade name or trademark of any business, that

offers or in any way relates to driving education or training,

and/or (2) maintaining a webpage at http://www.driveallstar.com,

or any other domain name including the words all star or

allstars, without clearly stating on that webpage that defendants

and their business are unaffiliated with PDL, Inc. or the

Allstars School of Driving.

DATED: May 21, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-00102-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/22/07 Page 7 of 7