N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TR ITAPOR

N SIR ISUP, an individual; SIR ISUP, INC
. ,

Pla i ntiffs-c ounte rde fe nda nts-Appe l la

nts,
v. IT’ S THAI, LLC , a

C a lifornia

lim ite d lia bility c om pa ny ; IT’ S THAI C ANTEEN, LLC , a C a lifornia

lim ite d lia bility C om pa ny ; R URK SUPTHONG, a

n individual; SIRIN R

ANGSIYAC HAT, a

n individual, De fe nda

nts-c o unte rc la im ants-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55875 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-07246-DDP-PJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

TR ITAPOR

N SIR ISUP, an individual; SIR ISUP, INC
. ,

Pla i ntiffs-c ounte rde fe nda nts-Appe l le e s,
v. IT’ S THAI, LLC , a

C a lifornia

lim ite d No. 16-55911

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-07246-DDP-PJW 

# FIL ED
MAR 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.lia

bility c om pa ny ; IT’ S THAI C ANTEEN, LLC , a C a lifornia

lim ite d lia bility C om pa ny ; R URK SUPTHONG, a

n individual; SIRIN R

ANGSIYAC HAT, a

n individual, De fe nda

nts-c o unte rc la im ants-Appe lla

nts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd B YB E E, C irc uit Judge s, a nd W OODC O C K, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts Trita porn Sirisup a

nd Sirisup, Inc . (Sirisup) a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s e nt

ry of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s It’ s Tha i, LLC , It’ s Tha i C ante e n, LLC , R urk Supthong, a

nd Sirin R angsiy a c hat (It’ s Tha i) on c ross-m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t Sirisup’ s suit is pre c lude d by a se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt re a c h e d in a prior sta te c ourt
a c tion. It’ s Tha i c ross-a

p pe a l s the c ourt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y s ’ fe e s unde r the Lanha m Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 1117(a). The pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd

* * The Honora

ble John A. W oodc oc k, Jr., Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the distric t of M a ine , sitting by de signa t ion. 2proc e e dings, a nd we will not sta

te the m e xc e pt a s ne c e s sa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. I. W e re vie w the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C o. v . Dav is , 7 F.3d 180, 182 (9th C ir. 1993). Sirisup’ s c la im s a

re ba rre d by the Supe rior C ourt se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, whic h inc lude d

a m utua l ge ne ra l re le a se and a va lid wa ive r of a ll known a nd unknown c la im s be twe e n the pa rtie s. The se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt e xc lude d only the the n -sta y e d proc e e ding be fore the Unite d State s Pat e nt a n d Tra de m ark Offic e (USPTO) a s to Sirisup’ s owne rship of the“ Pim a i It’ s Tha i” se rvic e m ark from the ge ne ra l re le a se s. It did not e xc lude the unfa ir c om pe tition c la im s a dva

nc e d in the Supe rior C ourt a c tion, a s Sirisup now c onte nds. The USPTO e x c l usion m ake s no
m e ntion of a

ny “ c la im ,” or of infringe m e nt or unfa ir c om pe tition. M o re ove r, the
se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt pla inly provide s for the dism issa l, with pre judic e , of a ll the Supe rior C ourt c la im s, a

nd for a se ttle m e nt pa

ym e nt for the “ full a

nd c om ple te
se ttle m e nt of the Supe rior C ourt Ac t ion.” 1

1 The “ Supe rior C ourt Ac tion” is de fine d a s Sirisup’ s la wsuit tha t a l le ge d, inte r alia , “ unfa ir c om

p e tition (c om

m on la w), and unfa ir c om

p e tition pursua

nt to C a lifornia B usine s s a

nd Profe ssions c ode se c t ion 17200.”

3The se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt a lso ba rs Sirisup’ s fe de ra l tra de m ark infringe m e nt
c la im s, whic h a

re ba se d e ntire ly

on the sa m e It’ s Tha i re sta

urant ope rations a

t issue in the Supe rior C ourt c a se . As Sirisup knewit ha d a pote ntia l tra d e m ark infringe m e nt c la im

a ga inst It’ s Tha i tha

t wa s de pe nde nt on theoutc om e of the USPTO a c tion, it “

ha d a duty to spe c ific a lly e xc lude that c la im ” from the re le a se s. Edw ards v . C

omstoc k Ins. C o. , 252 C a l. R

p t r. 807, 810 (C a l. C t. App. 1988). Sirisup’ s pote ntia l fe d e ra l tra d e m ark infringe m e nt c la i m s a ga inst It’ s Tha i for a ny of It’ s Tha i’ s the n-e xisting operations we re pla inly re le a se d in these ttle m e nt
a gre e m e nt. II. Unde r the La

nha m Ac t, re a sona

ble attorne y s’ fe e s m ay

be awarde d to pre v a i ling pa

rtie s in “ e xc e p tiona l c a s e s.” 15 U.S.C . § 1117(a). The disc re tiona ry de te rm i nation of whe the r a c a se is e xc e ptiona l is guide d by the tota lity

of the
c irc um s ta nc e s . SunEarth, Inc . v . Sun Earth Solar Pow e r C o. , 839 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba

nc ) (pe r c uriam ) (c iting Oc t aneFitne ss, LLC v . IC ON He alth & Fitne ss, Inc
. , 134 S. C t. 1749, 1756 (2014)). We re vie w for a buse of disc re tion. Id. (c i ting Highmark

Inc
. v . Allc areHe alth Mgmt. Sy s., Inc
. , 134 S. C t. 1744, 1748–49 (2014)).

4It’ s Tha i c onte nds the distric t c ourt a pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd to its
re que s t for La

nha m Ac t fe e s. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t this c a se wa s not

“ e x c e ptiona l” unde r the Oc taneFitne ss sta n da rd, prope rly

c onside ring fa c tors sim ila r to thoseide nt ifie d in O c taneFitne ss , 134 S. C t. at

1756 n.6, a

nd Foge rty v . Fantasy , Inc
. , 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994). Se e SunEarth , 839 F.3d a t 1180–81. The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r the La nha m Ac t wa s not a

n
a buse o f disc re tion. AFFIRM E D.

5