N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SOLID 21, INC ., a

Ne v a da C o rporation he a dqua rte d in Los Ange le s, C a lifornia , Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. HUB LOT OF AM ER IC A, a Florida C orporation; e t a l .,

De fe nda n ts-c o unte rc la im ants-Appe lle e s. No. 15-56036 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00468-DM G-JC
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 8, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Solid 21, Inc
. (“ Solid 21” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Hublot of Ame ric a and its a ffilia

t e s (c olle c tive ly 

# FIL ED MAR 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.“ Hublot” ). The distric t c ourt c o nc lude d tha t no ge nuine issue of m a te ria l fa c t
e xiste d re ga

rding whe the r Solid 21’ s m ark “ re d gold” is inva lid be c a

u se it is ge ne ric . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t
c ourt’ s e v ide ntia

ry rulings for a

buse of disc re tion, Estate of Barabin v
. Aste nJ ohnson, Inc
. , 740 F.3d 457, 462 (9th C i r. 2014), a nd “ re vie w sum

m ary judgm e nts de novo,” Zobmondo Entm’t, LLC v . Falls Me dia, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th C ir. 2010). For thefollowing re a sons, we re ve rse and re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. The distric t c ourt e xc lude d a portion of thede c l ara tion of Solid 21’ s e xpe rt linguist, Dr. R

ona ld B utte rs, a s going to the ultim a te issue
. In a

c ivil c a se ,

“ [a ] n opinion is not obje c tiona ble just be c a

u se it e m b ra c e s an ultim a te issue .” Fe d. R . Evid. 704(a). “ That

sa i d, a n e xpe rt witne ss c annot give an opinion a s to he r le gal c onc lusion , i.e ., a

n opinion on a

n ultim a t e issue of la

w.” N ationw ide Transp. Fin. v
. C ass Info. Sy

s., Inc
. , 523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th C i r. 2008) (quoting Hangarte r v . Prov ide nt Life & Ac c ide nt Ins. C

o. , 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th C ir. 2004)). The distric t c ourt e x c lude d the portions of Dr. B utte rs’ s de c la ra tion tha t
re late d to a

nything othe r tha

n dic tiona ry de finitions of “

re d gold.” This inc lude d his te stim ony

re ga rding the a ssoc iations tha t ordina ry English spe ake rs ha

ve with
2the t e rm

“ re d gold.” The distric t c ourt did not e xpla in why this te stim ony wa s unhe lpful or c onstitute d nothing more tha n a le ga l c onc lusion. The

e x c l usion of this te stim ony

pre judic e d Solid 21 by de priving it of e vide nc e re lat e d to the prim ary signific anc e that c onsum e rs a ssign Solid 21’ s m ark. Se e K e llogg C o. v . N at’l Bisc uit C

o. , 305 U.S. 111, 118 (1938) (a rtic ulating thete st for ge ne ric ne ss a s

“ the prim ary

signific anc e of the te rm

in the m inds of thec onsum i ng public ” ). The distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion by

e xc luding Dr. B utte rs’ s linguistic opinions a s going to the

ultim a te issue
. 2. The distric t c ourt e xc lude d Solid 21’ s proffe re d c onsum e r de c la

ra tions unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of C i vil Proc e dure 37(c ) be c a use Solid 21 did not disc l ose the witne s se s in its initia

l disc losure s or be fore filing its opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt. In orde r for R u le 37(c ) to ba

r the introduc tion of e vide nc e , a pa rty ’ s fa ilure to disc lose m

u st pre j udic e the opposing pa

rty . Se e R & R Sails, Inc . v . Ins. C o. of Pa. , 673 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th C ir. 2012). C o nsum e r pe rc e ption goe s to the he art of the ge ne ric n e ss inquiry , se e Ye llow C ab C o. of Sac rame nto v . Ye l low C ab of Elk Grov e , Inc
. , 419 F.3d 925, 929 (9th C i r. 2005), so thee xc lusion of c onsum e r de c la ra tions put a

substa n tia l hurdle in the way

of Solid 21’ s e ffort to m ount a
suc c e ssful opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt. Hublot c ould ha ve c ure d a

ny pre j udic e by ta king the opportunity

to c o nduc t a dditiona l disc ove ry , inc luding
3de posing thewitne sse s if it wishe d, a nd supple m e nting its m

otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt if ne c e ssa

ry . The distric t c ourt’ s othe r stat e d re a sons for e xc luding the de c la rations do not justify its ruling. The

c onsum e r de c la

rations offe re d by Solid 21 did not re late sole ly to se c onda

ry m e aning. C onsum e rs Dona l d Ande rson, Ke lly Trah an, Luc ille B ily e y e v, Orville “ Sha ggy ” B urre ll, Ty son B e c kford, Sam u e l Appia h, Je rm a ine C ole m an, Aa

ron Goodwin, a

n d R obe rt Filote i a l l sta

te d tha t the y a ssoc iate “ re d gold” with C hris Aire and Solid 21. Form e r Solid 21 e m ploy e e M a

ry Davis de sc ribe d he r unde rsta

nding tha t “ re d gold” ha d not be e n use d to de s c ribe watc he s be fore Solid 21 sta

rte d using the

te rm . This is the

ty p e of e vide nc e tha

t c ourts ha

ve a dm itte d for purpose s of de te rm ining ge ne ric ne ss. Se e Se lf-Re alization Fe l low ship C hurc h v . Ananda C

h urc h of Se lf-Re alization , 59 F.3d 902, 909 (9th C ir. 1995) (c onside ring de c la

ra tions of “ ‘ b uy e rs’ re le va nt to thege ne ric n e ss a

na ly sis” ); se e also Zobmondo , 602 F.3d a t 1120 (c onc luding tha

t e xpe rt te s tim ony

tha t “ W ould You R a the r . . . ? ” ha d not pre viously be e n use d to de sc ribe a

boa rd gam e wa s re le va nt to whe the r the m ark wa s wide ly unde rstood by c onsum e rs to re fe r to the ty pe of ga m e in que stion). Additiona lly , the distric t c ourt sta te d tha t the de c la

ra tions a ll c am e “ from
e m ploy e e s, form e r c olle a gue s, or individua ls who ha ve known Aire [] for a

‘ long
4tim e ,’ ” and c onc l ude d tha t this sort of ev ide nc e wa s irre le va nt unde r Ninth C irc uit
c a se la w. Se e Se lf-Re alization , 59 F.3d a t 910 (“ T ra d e m ark la

w is skeptic a l of the
a bility of a n a ssoc iate of a

tra de m ark holde r to tra

nsc e nd pe rsona l bia s e s to givean im pa rtia l a c c ount of theva lue of the holde r’ s m ark.” ). B ut only one witne ss wa s a

form e r Solid 21 e m

ploy e e , a nd none of the de c la ra tions a c tua lly

de sc ribe d

a c lose pe rsona l re lat ionship with Aire . The witne s s te stim o ny

he re is unlikethe te stim ony e xc lude d in S

e l f-Re a lization , whic h
c am e from only

the pla intiff’ s “ e m

p loy e e s a nd whole sa le rs.” Id. Furthe rm o re , the
c ourt in Se lf-Re alization c onc lude d tha t the de c la

ra tions ha d “ littleprobat ive
va lue ,” not tha

t the y we re ina dm issible
. Id. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re t ion by

e xc luding thec onsum e r de c la rations. 3. W ith this a d ditiona l e vide nc e , Solid 21 ra ise d a tria b le issue of m a te ria l fa c t c onc e rning whe the r c onsum e rs unde rsta nd “ re d gold” to re fe r only to a pa rtic u la r produc e r’ s goods (in whic h c a se the te rm is not ge ne ric ) or whe the r c onsum e rs unde rsta

n d the te rm

to re fe r to the goods the m se lve s (in whic h c a se the te rm is ge ne ric ). Se e K

P Pe rmane nt Mak

e -Up, Inc . v . Lasting Impre s sion I, Inc
. , 408 F.3d 596, 604 (9th C ir. 2005). Appe lle e s sha ll be ar c osts on a ppe a l. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.
5