lions gate v. td ameritrade - dirty dancing opinion.pdf

Upload: mark-h-jaffe

Post on 13-Apr-2018

233 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    1/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    O

    UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

    CENTRAL DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

    LI ONS GATE ENTERTAI NMENTI NC. , a Del awar ecor por at i on,

    Pl ai nt i f f ,

    v.

    TD AMERI TRADE SERVI CESCOMPANY, I NC. , a Del awar ecor por at i on; TD AMERI TRADE,I NC. , a New Yor k

    corporat i on; AMERI VESTI NVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,a Del awar e l i mi t ed l i abi l i t ycompany; HAVAS WORLDWI DE NEWYORK, I NC. , a Del awar ecor por at i on,

    Def endant s.___________________________

    ))))))))))))

    )))))))))

    Case No. CV 15- 05024 DDP ( Ex)

    ORDER DENYING IN PART ANDGRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTSMOTION TO DISMISS

    [ Dkt . No. 49]

    Pr esent l y bef or e t he Cour t i s t he Mot i on t o Di smi ss of

    Def endant s TD Amer i t r ade Servi ces Company, TD Amer i t r ade, I nc. ,Amer i vest I nvest ment Management , LLC, and Havas Wor l dwi de New York,

    I nc. ( col l ecti vel y, Def endant s). ( Dkt . No. 49. ) Af t er

    consi der i ng t he par t i es submi ssi ons and hear i ng or al ar gument , t he

    Cour t adopt s t he f ol l owi ng Or der .

    / / /

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    2/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    I. BACKGROUND

    Thi s copyr i ght and t r ademar k i nf r i ngement case ar i ses f r om

    Pl ai nt i f f Li ons Gat e Ent er t ai nment , I nc. s i nt el l ectual pr oper t y

    r i ght s i n t he movi e Dirty Dancing t hat Pl ai nt i f f al l eges Def endant si nf r i nged. ( Fi r st Am. Compl . ( FAC) 15, 22, 32. )

    Pl ai nt i f f Li ons Gat e i s a gl obal ent er t ai nment company that

    pr oduces, di st r i but es, f i nances, l i censes, and per f or ms other

    r el at ed act i vi t i es f or movi es and t el evi si on shows. ( I d. 15-

    16. ) Dirty Dancing i s a wor l d f amous, Oscar- wi nni ng f i l m, whi ch

    was r el eased i n 1987 and became a massi ve box of f i ce hi t , wi t h

    hundr eds of mi l l i ons of dol l ar s i n wor l dwi de ear ni ngs r epor t ed.

    ( I d. 17. ) Many scenes and l i nes f r om t he f i l m ar e par t i cul ar l y

    wel l - known. ( I d. ) The FAC not es i n par t i cul ar t he l i ne Nobody

    put s Baby i n a cor ner , sai d by Pat r i ck Swayze t o J enni f er Gr ey i n

    t he f i nal cl i macti c scene of t he f i l m. ( I d. 21. ) The l i ne i s

    f ol l owed by t he f i nal dance between t he two mai n characters,

    cul mi nat i ng wi t h Swayze l i f t i ng Gr ey over hi s head ( t he dancel i f t ) . ( I d. )

    Li ons Gat e cl ai ms t o own al l r i ght , t i t l e and i nt er est i n,

    and . . . t he copyr i ght i n, t he f i l m. ( I d. 22. ) Li ons Gat e

    al so cl ai ms t o own common- l aw t r ademark r i ght s i n DI RTY DANCI NG and

    NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A CORNER, t he l at t er mar k bei ng one associ at ed

    wi t h Dirty Dancing t he movi e and both of whi ch ar e used i n mot i on

    pi ct ur es, var i ous i t ems of mer chandi se, and ot her adapt at i ons of

    t he f i l m. ( I d. 18- 19, 23- 24. ) Li ons Gat e al so cl ai ms t o have

    r egi st ered t he t r ademark DI RTY DANCI NG and to have appl i ed f or

    t r ademark r egi st r at i on i n NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A CORNER. ( I d.

    24. ) The l at t er t r ademar k r egi st r at i on i s based on act ual use of

    2

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    3/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    t he mark f or cer t ai n goods and on an i nt ent t o use t he mark f or t he

    r emai ni ng goods i dent i f i ed i n t he appl i cat i ons. ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f

    cl ai ms t hat i t has l i censed t he mar ks DI RTY DANCI NG and NOBODY PUTS

    BABY I N A CORNER f or t he manuf act ur i ng, market i ng, and sal e of avar i et y of mer chandi se t hr ough appr oved l i censees. ( I d. 26. )

    Fur t her , Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat i t l i censes el ement s f r om Dirty

    Dancing t o t hi r d par t i es, who use Dirty Dancing t o adver t i se,

    mar ket , or pr omot e t hei r goods and ser vi ces. ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f

    cl ai ms t hat t he t r ademarks have secondar y meani ng and ar e f amous,

    as wel l as ar e associ at ed wi t h goodwi l l and qual i t y, cr eat i ng hi gh

    val ue i n t he mar ks f or Pl ai nt i f f and i t s l i censees. ( I d. 28-

    29. )

    Def endant s TD Amer i t r ade, TD Amer i t r ade Servi ces, and

    Amer i vest ( col l ect i vel y, TD Def endant s) ar e r el at ed f i nanci al

    servi ces or gani zat i ons. ( I d. 4- 8. ) Havas Wor l dwi de New Yor k

    ( Havas New Yor k) i s an adver t i si ng agency t hat was hi r ed i n 2014

    t o cr eat e a nat i onal adver t i si ng campai gn f or t he TD Def endant s.( I d. 30- 31. ) The adver t i sement s consi st ed of onl i ne vi deos,

    di gi t al di spl ays, soci al medi a, emai l , t el evi si on, and pr i nt ads.

    ( I d. ) Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s FAC, [ t ] he Adver t i si ng Campai gn

    was gener al l y publ i shed and di spl ayed i n Cal i f or ni a and was

    di r ect l y di st r i but ed t o Cal i f or ni a r esi dent s, i n accor dance wi t h

    Def endant s pl ans and i nt ent i ons. ( I d. 31. ) Fur t her ,

    [ a] ppr oxi mat el y 20% of TD Amer i t r ade s nat i onwi de br anch of f i ces

    ar e i n Cal i f or ni a and [ e] mai l s sent as par t of t he Adver t i si ng

    Campai gn i ncl uded i n t hei r f i ne pr i nt a l i nk t o TD Amer i t r ade s

    onl i ne pr i vacy st at ement , whi ch i ncl udes i nf or mat i on expr essl y

    di r ected t o emai l r eci pi ent s t hat r esi de i n Cal i f or ni a. ( I d. )

    3

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    4/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat t he adver t i si ng campai gn i nt ent i onal l y

    copi ed t he Dirty Dancing mot i on pi ct ur e, and was i nt ent i onal l y

    desi gned t o cr eat e an associ at i on wi t h Li ons Gat e and i t s

    commerci al act i vi t i es by market i ng TD Amer i t r ade s goods andservi ces wi t h phr ases t hat modi f i ed t he NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A

    CORNER t r ademar k and quot e f r om Dirty Dancing, as wel l as t he

    si gnat ur e dance l i f t . ( I d. 32- 34. ) Essent i al l y, t he mai n l i ne

    of t he adver t i sement campai gn i s: Nobody put s your ol d 401k i n a

    cor ner , wi t h an encour agement t o enr ol l i n t he TD Def endant s I RA

    pl ans. ( I d. 32. ) The adver t i sement s of t en i ncl uded i mages t o

    conj ur e up Dirty Dancing, such as a st i l l and/ or movi ng i mage of a

    man l i f t i ng a pi ggy bank over hi s head af t er t he pi ggy bank ran

    i nt o t he man s ar ms. ( I d. 34. ) Some ver si ons of t he

    adver t i sement s i nvoked t he song, ( I ve Had) t he Ti me of My Li f e,

    whi ch pl ayed dur i ng t he f i nal dance scene i n t he movi e, wi t h l i nes

    l i ke [ b] ecause r et i r ement shoul d be t he t i me of your l i f e. ( I d. )

    Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat al l t hese uses r ender consumer conf usi onl i kel y t o occur . ( I d. 35- 36. )

    Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat t he adver t i si ng campai gn r an f r om

    Oct ober 2014 t o Apr i l 12, 2015, as Pl ai nt i f f cont act ed t he TD

    Def endant s about t he campai gn i n Apr i l af t er Pl ai nt i f f l ear ned of

    i t . ( I d. 37- 38. ) Havas New Yor k r esponded t o t he cease and

    desi st l et t er on behal f of i t sel f and t he TD Def endant s, cl ai mi ng

    t hat Pl ai nt i f f had no enf or ceabl e t r ademar k r i ght s and t hat

    Def endant s wer e maki ng a par ody. ( I d. 39. ) Shor t l y af t er an

    exchange of l et t er s r egar di ng t he adver t i si ng campai gn, Def endant s

    ceased t he campai gn, but st i l l r ef used t o pay Pl ai nt i f f f or t hei r

    al l eged i nf r i ngi ng use. ( I d. 41. )

    4

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    5/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    The par t i es cont i nued communi cat i ng about set t l ement of

    Pl ai nt i f f s pot ent i al cl ai ms, wi t h Pl ai nt i f f stat i ng i n J une 2015

    t hat i f set t l ement di scussi ons di d not engage i n ear nest , i t woul d

    f i l e a l awsui t i n t he Cent r al Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni a. ( I d. 42-44. ) Af t er t he par t i es f ai l ed t o set t l e, Def endant s f i l ed a

    decl ar at or y j udgment sui t i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k.

    ( I d. 45- 47. ) Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a mot i on t o t r ansf er venue i n t he

    New Yor k case and al so f i l ed i t s own sui t i n t he Cent r al Di st r i ct

    of Cal i f or ni a. ( I d. 49; see al so Compl . , dkt . no. 1. ) On

    Sept ember 29, 2015, t he New Yor k f ederal cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on

    t o tr ansf er ; shor t l y t her eaf t er , Def endant s vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed

    t hei r cl ai ms i n t he New Yor k sui t . ( FAC 49- 50. ) Now,

    Def endant s have f i l ed a Mot i on t o Di smi ss f or ( 1) l ack of per sonal

    j ur i sdi ct i on over Havas New Yor k; and ( 2) Copyr i ght Act preempt i on.

    II. LEGAL STANDARD

    A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2)

    Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 2) pr ovi des t hat a cour tmay di smi ss a sui t f or l ack of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on. The

    pl ai nt i f f has t he bur den of est abl i shi ng t hat j ur i sdi cti on exi st s,

    but need onl y make a pr i ma f aci e showi ng of j ur i sdi ct i onal f act s

    t o wi t hst and t he mot i on t o di smi ss. Pebbl e Beach Co. v. Caddy,

    453 F. 3d 1151, 1154 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) . [ U] ncont r over t ed al l egat i ons

    i n [ t he pl ai nt i f f s] compl ai nt must be t aken as t r ue, and conf l i ct s

    bet ween t he f act s cont ai ned i n t he par t i es af f i davi t s must be

    r esol ved i n [ t he pl ai nt i f f s] f avor . Ri o Pr ops. , I nc. v. Ri o

    I nt l I nt er l i nk, 284 F. 3d 1007, 1019 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) .

    / / /

    / / /

    5

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    6/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    B. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

    A 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m upon

    whi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed r equi r es a cour t t o det er mi ne the

    suf f i ci ency of t he pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt and whet her i t cont ai ns ashor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m showi ng t hat t he pl eader i s

    ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2) . Under Rul e

    12( b) ( 6) , a cour t must ( 1) const r ue t he compl ai nt i n t he l i ght most

    f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f , and ( 2) accept al l wel l - pl eaded f actual

    al l egat i ons as t r ue, as wel l as al l r easonabl e i nf er ences t o be

    dr awn f r om t hem. See Spr ewel l v. Gol den St at e War r i or s, 266 F. 3d

    979, 988 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) , amended on deni al of r eh g, 275 F. 3d 1187

    ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) .

    I n or der t o sur vi ve a 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss, t he

    compl ai nt must cont ai n suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er , accept ed as

    t rue, t o s tat e a cl ai m t o rel i ef t hat i s pl aus i bl e on i t s f ace.

    Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 663 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Bel l At l .

    Corp. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . However ,[ t ] hr eadbar e r eci t al s of t he el ement s of a cause of act i on,

    suppor t ed by mer e concl usory st at ement s, do not suf f i ce. I d. at

    678. Di smi ssal i s pr oper i f t he compl ai nt l acks a cogni zabl e

    l egal t heor y or suf f i ci ent f act s t o suppor t a cogni zabl e l egal

    t heor y. Mendi ondo v. Cent i nel a Hosp. Med. Ct r . , 521 F. 3d 1097,

    1104 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) .

    A compl ai nt does not suf f i ce i f i t t ender s naked

    asser t i on[ s] devoi d of f ur t her f act ual enhancement . I qbal , 556

    U. S. at 678 ( quot i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 556) . A cl ai m has

    f aci al pl ausi bi l i t y when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f actual cont ent t hat

    al l ows t he cour t t o dr aw t he r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he

    6

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    7/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    def endant i s l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. I d. The cour t

    need not accept as t r ue l egal concl usi ons merel y because t hey ar e

    cast i n t he f or m of f act ual al l egat i ons. War r en v. Fox Fami l y

    Wor l dwi de, I nc. , 328 F. 3d 1136, 1139 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) .III. DISCUSSION

    Def endant s make t wo mai n ar gument s i n suppor t of t hei r Mot i on

    t o Di smi ss. Fi r st , Havas New Yor k cl ai ms t hat i t i s not subj ect t o

    per sonal j ur i sdi cti on i n Cal i f or ni a. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 1, 7- 15. )

    Havas New Yor k cl ai ms t her e i s no gener al j ur i sdi ct i on because i t

    does not have of f i ces, empl oyees, or ot her cont act s i n Cal i f or ni a

    and Pl ai nt i f f cannot i mput e separ at el y i ncor por at ed si st er ent i t i es

    t o Havas New Yor k i n or der t o est abl i sh j ur i sdi ct i on. ( I d. at 1,

    7- 10. ) Ther e i s no speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on ei t her , Havas New Yor k

    cl ai ms, because i t merel y pr oduced t he adver t i sement s and

    del i ver ed t hem t o i t s cl i ent , TD Amer i t r ade Ser vi ces, out si de of

    Cal i f or ni a. ( I d. at 1, 10- 15. ) Because Havas New Yor k di d not

    di ssemi nat e the adver t i sement s or have any rol e or aut hor i t y i ndetermi ni ng whether , when, or where they woul d ai r , Havas New Yor k

    cl ai ms i t has not pur posef ul l y di r ect ed any act i vi t y t owar d

    Cal i f orni a. ( I d. at 1- 2. )

    Second, al l Def endant s ar gue t hat f our of Pl ai nt i f f s causes

    of act i on ar e pr eempt ed by the Copyr i ght Act : ( 1) Fal se Associ at i on

    and Unf ai r Compet i t i on under 15 U. S. C. 1125( a) ; ( 2) St at ut or y and

    Common Law Unf ai r Compet i t i on under Cal . Bus. & Pr of . Code 17200

    et seq. ; ( 3) Tr ademar k I nf r i ngement under 15 U. S. C. 1125( a) and

    common l aw; and (4) Trademark Di l ut i on under 15 U. S. C. 1125( c)

    and Cal . Bus. & Prof . Code 14247. ( See Mot . Di smi ss at 2, 15- 25;

    7

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    8/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    FAC 51- 81. ) Pl ai nt i f f al so has a cause of act i on f or copyr i ght

    i nf r i ngement t hat Def endant s do not cont est . ( FAC 82- 91. )

    Def endant s cl ai m t hat t he t r ademar k and unf ai r compet i t i on

    cl ai ms are pr eempt ed by t he Copyr i ght Act because t he cl ai ms arepr emi sed on t he unaut hor i zed r epr oduct i on of el ement s of a creat i ve

    wor k. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 2. ) Def endant s ar gue t hat t he el ement s

    ar e pr ot ect ed by t he Copyri ght Act and a pl ai nt i f f cannot br i ng

    ot her cl ai ms t o vi ndi cat e the same r i ght s, much l ess expand

    pr ot ect i on beyond t he scope of copyr i ght . ( I d. at 2, 17- 25. )

    Pl ai nt i f f r esponds t hat t her e i s per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over

    Havas New Yor k, as st r ongl y suggest ed by t he New Yor k f ederal cour t

    t hat hear d t he mot i on t o t r ansf er venue. ( Opp n at 1. ) At t he

    l east , Pl ai nt i f f ar gues, t he Cour t shoul d gr ant j ur i sdi cti onal

    di scover y. ( I d. at 1, 14- 15. ) Pl ai nt i f f c l ai ms t hat t her e i s

    gener al j ur i sdi ct i on over Havas New Yor k because of i t s corpor at e

    r el at i onshi ps wi t h r el at ed Cal i f or ni a ent i t i es and Cal i f or ni a- based

    cl i ent s. ( I d. at 5- 6. ) Ther e i s al so speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on her e,Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms, because Havas New Yor k cr eated t he adver t i sement

    campai gn knowi ng and i nt endi ng i t t o be r un i n Cal i f or ni a and

    speci f i cal l y di r ected t o Cal i f or ni a consumer s. ( I d. at 7

    ( emphasi s r emoved) . ) Accordi ng t o Pl ai nt i f f , because Havas New

    York pur posef ul l y di r ect ed i t s act i vi t i es at Cal i f or ni a,

    Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms ar i se out of t hose acti vi t i es, and exer ci se of

    j ur i sdi ct i on woul d be r easonabl e, t hi s Cour t shoul d f i nd i t has

    per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over Havas New Yor k. ( I d. at 8- 14. )

    Second, Pl ai nt i f f ar gues i t has al l eged cl ear t r ademar k and

    unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms t hat exi st i ndependent l y f r om i t s

    copyr i ght cl ai m and t hat Pl ai nt i f f can enf or ce bot h of ki nds of

    8

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    9/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    i nt el l ect ual propert y r i ght s . ( I d. at 2, 16- 25. ) Pl ai nt i f f

    acknowl edges t hat t he t r ademar k and copyr i ght cl ai ms der i ve f r om

    one cr eat i ve wor k, t he f i l m Dirty Dancing, but t hat cour t s have

    consi st ent l y hel d t hat a si ngl e wor k may si mul t aneousl y bepr ot ect ed under copyr i ght and t r ademar k l aw. ( I d. at 2. )

    I n t hei r Repl y, Def endant s r ei t er at e t hat t her e ar e no gr ounds

    f or per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over Havas New Yor k because: Havas New

    York i s a f or ei gn ent i t y, and cont r act ed wi t h anot her f or ei gn

    ent i t y, TD Amer i t r ade Ser vi ces, t o devel op a nat i onal adver t i si ng

    campai gn; t hat t he Accused Ads were both cr eat ed f or and del i ver ed

    t o TD Amer i t r ade Ser vi ces out si de of Cal i f or ni a; and t hat TD

    Amer i t r ade Ser vi ces di st r i but ed t he Accused Ads. ( Repl y at 1. )

    As f or t he copyr i ght pr eempt i on i ssue, Def endant s cl ai m t hat

    Pl ai nt i f f i n i t s Opposi t i on and FAC have commi ngl e[ d] t he

    quot e/ al l eged mar k wi t h t he f i l m Dirty Dancing as a whol e and t hat

    t her e i s no r eal use of t he al l eged t r ademar k out si de of t he

    copyr i ght ed mot i on pi ct ur e wor k. ( I d. at 2. )A. Personal Jurisdiction

    Di st r i ct cour t s have t he power t o exer ci se per sonal

    j ur i sdi ct i on t o t he ext ent aut hor i zed by t he l aw of t he st at e i n

    whi ch t hey si t . Fed. R. Ci v. P. 4( k) ( 1) ( A) ; Panavi si on I nt l , L. P.

    v. Toeppen, 141 F. 3d 1316, 1320 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) . Because

    Cal i f or ni a s l ong- ar m st at ut e aut hor i zes per sonal j ur i sdi cti on

    coext ensi ve wi t h t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Uni t ed St at es

    Const i t ut i on, see Cal . Ci v. Pr oc. Code 410. 10, t hi s Cour t may

    exer ci se per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over a nonr esi dent def endant when

    t hat def endant has at l east mi ni mum cont act s wi t h t he r el evant

    f or um such t hat t he exer ci se of j ur i sdi ct i on does not of f end

    9

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    10/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    t r adi t i onal not i ons of f ai r pl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce.

    Schwarzenegger v. Fr ed Mar t i n Motor Co. , 374 F. 3d 797, 801 (9t h

    Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng I nt l Shoe Co. v. Washi ngt on, 326 U. S. 310, 316

    ( 1945) ) . The def endant s cont act s wi t h t he f or um must be of such aqual i t y and nat ur e that t he def endant s coul d reasonabl y expect

    bei ng hal ed i nt o cour t t her e. Wor l d- Wi de Vol kswagen Cor p. v.

    Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 297 ( 1980) . Per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on may be

    ei t her gener al or speci f i c. See Schwar zenegger , 374 F. 3d at 801.

    1. General Jurisdiction

    Gener al j ur i sdi ct i on exi st s over a nonr esi dent def endant when

    t he def endant . . . engage[ s] i n cont i nuous and syst emat i c

    gener al busi ness cont act s t hat appr oxi mat e physi cal pr esence i n

    t he f or um st at e. I d. ( quot i ng Hel i copt er os Naci onal es de

    Col ombi a, S. A. v. Hal l , 466 U. S. 408, 416 ( 1984) ) ( i nt er nal

    quot at i on omi t t ed) . The st andar d f or gener al j ur i sdi ct i on i s

    exact i ng. I d. Wher e a def endant i s subj ect t o a st at e s gener al

    j ur i sdi ct i on, he can be hal ed i nto cour t i n t hat st at e i n anyact i on, even i f t he act i on i s unr el at ed t o t hose cont act s.

    Bancr of t & Mast er s, I nc. v. August a Nat l , I nc. , 223 F. 3d 1082,

    1086 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) . Fact or s t o be t aken i nt o consi der at i on ar e

    whet her t he def endant makes sal es, sol i ci t s or engages i n busi ness

    i n t he stat e, ser ves t he st at e s mar ket s, desi gnat es an agent f or

    ser vi ce of pr ocess, hol ds a l i cense, or i s i ncor por at ed t her e.

    I d.

    The Supreme Cour t has hel d t hat gener al j ur i sdi ct i on can be

    exer ci sed over cor por at i ons i n t he st at e of i ncor por at i on and i t s

    pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness, al t hough i n an except i onal case,

    t her e can be gener al j ur i sdi ct i on i n ot her f or a. See Dai ml er AG v.

    10

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    11/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    Bauman, 134 S. Ct . 746, 760- 61 & n. 19 ( 2014) . The Supreme Cour t

    di d not pr ovi de much expl anat i on as t o t hose except i onal cases,

    ot her t han t o say that a cor por at i on s oper at i ons i n a f or um ot her

    t han i t s f or mal pl ace of i ncor por at i on or pr i nci pal pl ace ofbusi ness may be so subst ant i al and of such a natur e as t o render

    t he cor por at i on at home i n t hat St at e. I d. at 761 n. 19.

    Here, Def endant Havas New Yor k i s i ncor porated i n Del aware and

    has i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness i n New Yor k f act s nei t her

    par t y cont est s. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 8; Opp n at 5- 6; FAC 9. )

    I nst ead, Pl ai nt i f f cont ends t hat t hi s i s an except i onal case

    wher e gener al j ur i sdi ct i on can be f ound out si de those par adi gmat i c

    cat egor i es. Pl ai nt i f f r el i es on Col l egeSour ce, I nc. v. AcademyOne,

    I nc. , 653 F. 3d 1066, 1074 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) , whi ch st at ed t hat i t

    consi der ed t he l ongevi t y, cont i nui t y, vol ume, economi c i mpact ,

    physi cal pr esence, and i nt egr at i on i nt o t he st at e s r egul at or y or

    economi c mar ket s of t he def endant s cont act s wi t h t he f or um st at e

    when det er mi ni ng i f gener al j ur i sdi ct i on i s appr opr i at e.Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Havas New Yor k has l ar ge Cal i f or ni a-

    based cl i ent s and cl i ent s t hat have a subst ant i al Cal i f or ni a

    pr esence, such as t he TD Def endant s. ( Opp n at 6 & n. 3 ( ci t i ng

    Wal t er s Decl . 18- 24) ; see al so FAC 12. ) Fur t her , Pl ai nt i f f

    ar gues t hat Havas New Yor k has extensi ve, sel f - pr ocl ai med

    connect i ons t o of f i ces t hr oughout t he wor l d, i ncl udi ng 8 si st er

    ent i t i es i n Cal i f or ni a wi t h whom Havas has over l appi ng cor por at e

    of f i cer s. ( Opp n at 6 & n. 4 ( ci t i ng Wal t er s Decl . 12- 17) ; see

    al so FAC 10- 11. ) The FAC st at es t hat Havas oper at es of f i ces i n

    bot h San Franci sco, Cal i f or ni a and San Di ego, Cal i f or ni a, and i s

    af f i l i at ed wi t h l ocal of f i ces t hr oughout t he U. S. , i ncl udi ng 8

    11

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    12/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    of f i ces i n Cal i f or ni a, 2 of whi ch ar e l ocat ed i n Los Angel es.

    ( FAC 11. ) Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Havas New Yor k f r equent l y

    par t ner s and does busi ness wi t h i t s af f i l i at es i n Cal i f or ni a and

    hol ds i t sel f out t o i t s cl i ent s as under one r oof . ( I d. )Def endant s ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f has i t s f act s wr ong.

    Def endant s cl ai m t hat Havas New Yor k does not mai nt ai n an of f i ce

    i n San Franci sco, San Di ego, or anywher e el se i n Cal i f or ni a.

    ( Mot . Di smi ss at 9 ( ci t i ng Wynne Decl . 3) . ) These Cal i f or ni a

    of f i ces i nst ead bel ong t o si st er Havas ent i t i es. ( I d. ( ci t i ng

    Wynne Decl . 12- 13. ) Fur t her , Def endant s ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

    cl ai m about t he amount of Cal i f or ni a cl i ent s i s i ncor r ect ( ci t i ng

    Wynne Decl . 18) , and r egar dl ess of t he cl i ent s, mer el y havi ng

    Cal i f orni a cl i ent s i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o f i nd general j ur i sdi ct i on.

    ( Mot . Di smi ss at 9 ( ci t i ng Col l egeSour ce, 653 F. 3d at 1075) . ) The

    f ocus i nst ead i s on wher e t he busi ness act i vi t y i s per f or med.

    ( I d. ( quot i ng Cyper s v. Br oussar d Br os. , I nc. , No. 3: 13- cv- 0050,

    2013 WL 3480381, at *3 ( S. D. Tex. J ul y 9, 2013) . ) And Def endant scl ai m t hat havi ng si st er ent i t i es some of whi ch ar e i n Cal i f or ni a

    cannot make gener al j ur i sdi ct i on, par t i cul ar l y wher e t her e i s no

    agency t heor y of j ur i sdi ct i on or al l egat i ons of al t er ego. ( Mot .

    Di smi ss at 9- 10 ( ci t i ng Dai ml er , 134 S. Ct . at 759; Wynne Decl .

    12- 15) . )

    The Cour t f i nds t hat t he quest i on of gener al j ur i sdi ct i on over

    Havas New Yor k i n Cal i f or ni a i s a cl ose one on t he f act ual r ecor d

    devel oped her e. On t he one hand, Havas New York does ext ensi ve

    busi ness i n Cal i f or ni a, even apar t f r om i t s s i ster ent i t i es i n

    Cal i f or ni a, and t he company hol ds i t sel f out t o t he publ i c as a

    wor l dwi de f i r m wi t h i nt er nal connect i ons wi t hi n t he di f f er ent

    12

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    13/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    si st er of f i ces. On t he other hand, Havas New Yor k does not onl y or

    per haps even pr i mar i l y deal wi t h cl i ent s or do busi ness i n

    Cal i f or ni a, much l ess have a physi cal pr esence i n t he st at e t he

    si st er ent i t i es ar e not gr ounds f or j ur i sdi ct i on and t her e i s noal l egat i on of al t er ego her e.

    Looki ng at t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t s f actor s f r om Col l egeSour ce, i t

    i s uncl ear how l ong Havas New Yor k has deal t i n Cal i f or ni a. Ther e

    does appear t o be some l ongevi t y, as t he f i r m has sever al l ar ge

    i nst i t ut i onal cl i ent s her e, al t hough Havas New Yor k may onl y be

    hi r ed f or a shor t t i me by some of i t s Cal i f or ni a cl i ent s. Ther e i s

    some uncer t ai nt y i n t he cur r ent r ecor d as t o t he vol ume of busi ness

    Havas New Yor k does i n Cal i f orni a. There i s economi c i mpact on

    both Cal i f orni a cl i ent s and Havas New Yor k t hr ough Havas New Yor k s

    Cal i f or ni a cl i ent s, but agai n t he r ecor d i s not t hat devel oped as

    t o t hi s f act or . Ther e does not appear t o be any physi cal pr esence

    by Havas New Yor k i t sel f i n Cal i f or ni a ot her i t s vi si t s t o i t s

    cl i ent s and meet i ngs wi t h i t s si st er ent i t i es. And t her e ar e nof act s i n t he r ecor d about Havas New Yor k s i nt egr at i on i nt o t he

    st at e s r egul at or y or economi c mar ket s her e i n Cal i f or ni a, so t he

    Cour t cannot consi der t hat f act or .

    Al t ogether , t he Cour t coul d see an argument f or general

    j ur i sdi ct i on i n t hi s case, al t hough t he r ecor d coul d al so benef i t

    f r om some mor e devel opment i n t hat r egar d. I f t he Cour t f i nds

    speci f i c j ur i sdi cti on, however , i t need not r est i t s deci si on on

    t hi s gr ound or or der j ur i sdi ct i onal di scover y.

    2. Specific Jurisdiction

    Speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on exi st s wher e a case ar i ses out of f or um-

    r el at ed act s. Schwar zenegger , 374 F. 3d at 801- 02. The r el evant

    13

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    14/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    cont act s wi t h t he f or um ar e t hose of t he def endant , not t he

    pl ai nt i f f or t hi r d par t i es no mat t er how si gni f i cant t he

    pl ai nt i f f s cont act s wi t h t he f or um may be. Wal den v. Fi or e, 134

    S. Ct . 1115, 1122 ( 2014) ( [ T] he pl ai nt i f f cannot be t he onl y l i nkbet ween t he def endant and t he f or um. Rat her , i t i s t he def endant s

    conduct t hat must f or m t he necessar y connect i on wi t h t he f or um

    St at e t hat i s t he basi s f or i t s j ur i sdi cti on over hi m. ) . The

    Ni nt h Ci r cui t anal yzes speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on accor di ng t o a t hr ee-

    pr ong t est :

    ( 1) The non- r esi dent def endant must pur posef ul l y di r ect

    hi s act i vi t i es or consummat e some t r ansact i on wi t h t hef or um or r esi dent t her eof ; or per f or m some act bywhi ch he pur posef ul l y avai l s hi msel f of t he pr i vi l egeof conduct i ng act i vi t i es i n t he f or um, t her ebyi nvoki ng t he benef i t s and pr ot ect i ons of i t s l aws;

    ( 2) t he cl ai m must be one whi ch ar i ses out of or r el at est o t he def endant s f or um- r el at ed act i vi t i es; and

    ( 3) t he exer ci se of j ur i sdi cti on must compor t wi t h f ai rpl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce, i . e. i t must ber easonabl e.

    Schwar zenegger , 374 at 802. I f t he pl ai nt i f f succeeds i nsat i sf yi ng bot h of t he f i r st t wo pr ongs, t he bur den t hen shi f t s t o

    t he def endant t o pr esent a compel l i ng case t hat t he exer ci se of

    j ur i sdi ct i on woul d not be r easonabl e. I d. at 802 ( ci t i ng Burger

    Ki ng Cor p. v. Rudzewi cz, 471 U. S. 452, 476- 78 ( 1985) ) .

    a. First Prong: Purposeful Availment & Direction

    To sat i sf y t he f i r st prong of t he speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on

    i nqui r y, cour t s exami ne whet her a def endant ei t her pur posef ul l y

    avai l ed i t sel f of t he pr i vi l ege of conducti ng acti vi t i es i n [ t he

    f or um st at e] , or pur posef ul l y di r ected i t s acti vi t i es t owar d [ t he

    f or um st at e] . I d. Di f f er ent t est s ar e appl i ed dependi ng on

    whet her t he case i s based on cont r act or t or t , wi t h avai l ment

    14

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    15/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    gener al l y used f or cont r act s and di r ect i on gener al l y used f or

    t or t s. I d. A showi ng t hat a def endant pur posef ul l y avai l ed

    hi msel f of t he pr i vi l ege of doi ng busi ness i n a f or um st at e

    t ypi cal l y consi st s of evi dence of t he def endant s act i ons i n t hef or um, such as execut i ng or per f or mi ng a cont r act t her e. I d.

    A showi ng t hat a def endant pur posef ul l y di r ect ed hi s conduct

    t owar d a f or um st at e, by cont r ast , usual l y consi st s of evi dence of

    t he def endant s act i ons out si de t he f or um st at e t hat ar e di r ect ed

    at t he f or um, such as t he di st r i but i on i n t he f or um st at e of goods

    or i gi nat i ng el sewher e; t hi s i ncl udes si t uat i ons wher e act i vi t i es

    ar e di r ect ed at r esi dent s of t he f or um even i f t her e ar e no

    physi cal cont act s wi t h t he f or um. I d. at 803; see al so Wor l d- Wi de

    Vol kswagen, 444 U. S. at 297- 98 ( The f orum St ate does not exceed

    i t s power s under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause i f i t asser t s per sonal

    j ur i sdi ct i on over a cor porat i on t hat del i ver s i t s product s i nto t he

    st r eamof commer ce wi t h t he expect at i on t hat t hey wi l l be pur chased

    by consumer s i n t he f or um St at e. ) .Thi s case i s not one wher e Havas New Yor k per f or med or

    execut ed a cont r act i n Cal i f or ni a, or wher e i t sought t he benef i t s

    of t he l aws of Cal i f or ni a. Ther ef or e, t her e ar e no gr ounds f or a

    pur posef ul avai l ment anal ysi s, and t he Cour t t ur ns t o pur posef ul

    di rect i on.

    The Ni nth Ci r cui t eval uat es pur posef ul di r ect i on usi ng a

    t hr ee- par t ef f ect s t est t aken f r om t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on

    i n Cal der v. J ones, 465 U. S. 783 ( 1984) . See Schwar zenegger , 374

    F. 3d at 803. The ef f ect s t est i s sat i sf i ed i f ( 1) t he def endant

    commi t t ed an i nt ent i onal act ; ( 2) t he act was expr essl y ai med at

    t he f or um st at e; and ( 3) t he act caused har m t hat t he def endant

    15

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    16/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    knew was l i kel y t o be suf f er ed i n t he f or um st at e. Love v.

    Associ at ed Newspaper s, Lt d. , 611 F. 3d 601, 609 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010)

    Her e, Havas New Yor k commi t t ed an i nt ent i onal act i n i t s

    cr eat i on of t he adver t i si ng campai gn. The par t i es di sput e whet hert he act was expr essl y ai med at Cal i f or ni a. Def endant s ar gue t hat

    al l eged knowl edge t hat TD Amer i t r ade was goi ng to pl ace t he

    Accused Ads nat i onwi de i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat Havas New

    York expr ess l y ai med act i vi t y t owar ds Cal i f or ni a. ( Mot . Di smi ss

    at 11. ) Havas New Yor k di d not di ssemi nat e t he adver t i sement s, di d

    not det ermi ne whet her and wher e t o use the Accused Ads, and t he

    adver t i sement s do not adver t i se Havas New Yor k s busi ness. ( I d. at

    11- 12. ) Def endant s cl ai m t hat f or t he Cour t t o f i nd j ur i sdi ct i on

    despi t e t hese f act s woul d r esul t i n essent i al l y nat i onal or

    wor l dwi de j ur i sdi ct i on over any cr eat i ve agency t hat del i ver s i t s

    work t o any company t hat operat es i n more than one st at e or

    i nt er nat i onal l y. ( I d. at 12. )

    I n r esponse, Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat Havas New Yor k desi gned t heal l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng adver t i sement campai gn knowi ng and i nt endi ng

    i t t o be r un i n Cal i f or ni a and speci f i cal l y di r ected t o Cal i f or ni a

    consumer s. ( Opp n at 7 ( ci t i ng Wynne Decl . 8; Wal t er s Decl .

    22- 24; Huert a Decl . 2- 5) . ) The campai gn was nat i onwi de, but

    Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat i t al so t ar get ed Cal i f or ni a speci f i cal l y

    because TD Amer i t r ade has 20% of i t s br anch of f i ces and many

    i ndi vi dual r et ai l i nvestor s i n Cal i f or ni a. ( I d. at 9 & n. 7 ( ci t i ng

    Wynne Decl . 8; Wal t ers Decl . 22- 23) . ) The f act t hat Havas New

    York di d not di ssemi nat e t he adver t i sement s i s not cont r ol l i ng,

    Pl ai nt i f f ar gues, because t hi s case i s j ust l i ke Cal der v. J ones,

    465 U. S. 783 ( 1945) .

    16

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    17/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    I n Cal der , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat a r epor t er and edi t or

    of a nat i onal publ i cat i on bot h ci t i zens of Fl or i da wer e subj ect

    t o sui t i n Cal i f or ni a because t he obj ect of t hei r al l egedl y

    l i bel ous ar t i cl e was i n Cal i f or ni a; i t di d not mat t er t hat t her epor t er and edi t or di d not ci r cul at e t he publ i cat i on because t hey

    i nt ent i onal l y ai med t hei r act i ons at Cal i f or ni a. I d. at 789; see

    al so Wal den, 134 S. Ct . at 1123- 24 & n. 7 ( di scussi ng Cal der ) . The

    def endant s ar gued t hat t hey coul d not cont r ol t hei r empl oyer s

    mar ket i ng and ci r cul at i on act i vi t y, and t hat t he f act t hat t hey

    coul d f or esee t he ar t i cl e s ci r cul at i on i n Cal i f or ni a i s not

    suf f i ci ent f or j ur i sdi ct i on. Cal der , 465 U. S. at 789 ( def endant s

    al so l i ken[ ed] t hemsel ves t o a wel der empl oyed i n Fl or i da who

    wor ks on a boi l er whi ch subsequent l y expl odes i n Cal i f or ni a and

    ar gued t hat whi l e j ur i sdi ct i on over t he manuf act ur er may be

    appr opr i at e, i t shoul d not be appl i ed t o t he wel der who has no

    cont r ol over and der i ves no di r ect benef i t f r om hi s empl oyer s

    sal es i n t hat di st ant Stat e) . The Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed t heseargument s, st at i ng t hat t he def endant s were not charged wi t h mere

    unt ar get ed negl i gence but i nst ead i nt ent i onal t or t i ous conduct

    expr essl y ai med at Cal i f or ni a:

    Pet i t i oner Sout h wr ot e and pet i t i oner Cal der edi t ed anar t i cl e t hat t hey knew woul d have a pot ent i al l y devast at i ngi mpact upon r espondent . And t hey knew t hat t he br unt oft hat i nqui r y woul d be f el t by respondent i n t he St at e i nwhi ch she l i ves and works and i n whi ch t he National

    Enquirer has i t s l ar gest ci r cul at i on. Under t heci r cumst ances, pet i t i oner s must r easonabl y ant i ci pat ebei ng hal ed i nt o cour t t her e t o answer f or t he t r ut h oft he st at ement s made i n t hei r ar t i cl e.

    I d. at 789- 90.

    The Cour t f i nds t hi s case anal ogous t o Cal der . Havas New Yor k

    knew i t was usi ng Li ons Gat e s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y no par t y

    17

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    18/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    di sput es t he i coni c nat ur e of Dirty Dancing or t hat Havas

    or i gi nal l y cl ai med as a def ense that i t was mer el y par odyi ng

    Pl ai nt i f f s f i l m, i ndi cat i ng i t s knowl edge of t he or i gi nal sour ce

    and Havas New Yor k cr eat ed an adver t i sement campai gn t hat t arget edPl ai nt i f f s i nt el l ectual pr oper t y r i ght s i n t he f i l m. Havas New

    York al so knew t hat t he ad woul d be i n one of t he l ar gest bases of

    popul at i on and r el evant consumer popul at i on i n t he nat i on f or a

    nat i onwi de adver t i si ng campai gn: Cal i f or ni a.

    The al l eged har m was f el t nat i onwi de, consi st ent wi t h t he

    extent of t he campai gn, but t he har m was al so t ar get ed t owar d

    Cal i f or ni a speci f i cal l y as a maj or hub of t he TD Def endant s

    busi ness, t he l ocat i on of Pl ai nt i f f s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness,

    and t he hear t of t he ent er t ai nment i ndust r y. See Ri o Pr ops. , I nc.

    v. Ri o I nt l I nt er l i nk, 284 F. 3d 1007, 1020- 21 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002)

    ( wher e def endant t ar get ed consumer s i n f or um wi t h di f f er ent ki nds

    of adver t i sement s and knowi ngl y i nj ur ed t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he

    f or um, whi ch was t he pl ai nt i f f s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness andt he capi t al of t he gambl i ng i ndust r y) . Ther ef or e, i t does not

    mat t er t hat Havas New Yor k di d not di st r i but e t he adver t i sement s;

    as i n Cal der , t he i nt ent i onal act, t he di r ect ai m t o Cal i f or ni a,

    and t he knowl edge of t he har m t hat woul d be caused i n Cal i f or ni a

    ar e suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pur posef ul di r ect i on.

    Havas New Yor k argues t hat Schwarzenegger put s a di f f erent

    gl oss on Cal der . ( Repl y at 11. ) Schwar zenegger hel d t here was no

    speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on i n Cal i f or ni a over an Ohi o car company that

    r an an unaut hor i zed adver t i sement usi ng Schwarzenegger s pi ct ur e

    because t he creat i on and publ i cat i on of t he adver t i sement was

    expr essl y ai med at Ohi o, not Cal i f or ni a i n f act , t her e was no

    18

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    19/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    evi dence that t he ad ever r an anywhere out si de Ohi o.

    Schwarzenegger , 374 F. 3d at 807. That case i s not anal ogous t o

    t hi s one because t he ads Havas New Yor k cr eat ed not onl y used

    Pl ai nt i f f s i nt el l ectual pr oper t y wi t hout aut hor i zat i on, but al sot he ads di d r un i n Cal i f orni a wi t h Havas New Yor k s knowl edge that

    t he campai gn was nat i onal , i ncl udi ng Cal i f or ni a.

    Havas New Yor k al so ar gues t hat t here i s a di f f erence when t he

    adver t i sement s ar e f or t he def endant i t sel f , r at her t han f or a

    di f f er ent ent i t y t hat deci des t o pl ace t he ads i n a nat i onal

    audi ence. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 12; Repl y at 11- 12. ) I n t he l at t er

    si t uat i on, Havas New Yor k ar gues, t her e shoul d be no j ur i sdi ct i on

    because t her e i s no at t empt by the def endant t o expl oi t t he f or um

    f or t he def endant s busi ness advant age. I n t he f or mer si t uat i on, a

    def endant has r eached out t o t he f or um wi t h adver t i sement s f or i t s

    own busi ness, t hus per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on i s appr opr i at e. ( Repl y at

    12. ) Havas New Yor k ci t es cases where def endant s, worki ng out si de

    of t he f or um, wer e not f ound t o be subj ect t o per sonal j ur i sdi ct i onbased on nat i onal di st r i but i on by a t hi r d par t y of al l egedl y

    i nf r i ngi ng wor k. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 12 ( ci t i ng Br i dgepor t Musi c,

    I nc. v. St i l l N t he Wat er Pub, 327 F. 3d 472, 480- 81 ( 6t h Ci r .

    2003) ; Dos Santos v. Tel emundo Commc ns Gr p. , LLC, No. SACV 12- 1373

    J VS ( MLGx) , 2012 WL 9503003, at *6- 7 ( C. D. Cal . Dec. 19, 2012) ;

    McDonough v. Fal l on McEl l i got t , I nc. , No. CI V 95- 4037, 1996 WL

    753991, at *4- 6 ( S. D. Cal . Aug. 5, 1996) .

    None of t hese cases ar e per suasi ve i n t hi s case. Br i dgepor t

    l acked any real evi dence regar di ng even nat i onwi de di st r i but i on of

    adver t i sement s. McDonough f ound evi dence bot h suppor t i ng and

    opposi ng speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on, and whi l e t he cour t ul t i mat el y

    19

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    20/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    f ound no speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on, i t di d so di st i ngui shi ng Cal der on

    t he basi s t hat t her e was no evi dence that t he ad t ar get ed t he

    f or um.

    Dos Sant os al so wei ghed evi dence poi nt i ng both ways as t ospeci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on, and ul t i mat el y f ound t hat t her e was no

    evi dent i ar y basi s t o f i nd t he def endant s acted wi t h a desi r e or

    goal of appeal i ng t o Cal i f or ni a and expl oi t i ng t he mar ket f or

    commerci al gai n, or t hat t hey di r ect ed Tel emundo s br oadcast s and

    adver t i si ng. Dos Sant os, No. SACV 12- 1373 J VS ( MLGx) , at * 7.

    The l ast st at ement of t he cour t i n Dos Santos about di r ect i ng

    anot her def endant s broadcast s and adver t i si ng appear s a bi t i n

    t ensi on wi t h Cal der s f i ndi ng t hat t he f act t hat def endant s do not

    act ual l y di st r i but e i nt ent i onal l y t or t i ous mat er i al does not mean

    t her e i s no speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on as l ong as t he def endant s knew

    t he mat er i al woul d be di st r i but ed i n t he f or um st at e. Cal der , 465

    U. S. at 789- 90. Ther ef or e, t he Cour t hol ds t hat t her e i s expr ess

    ai mi ng of i nt ent i onal l y t or t i ous conduct i n t hi s case as al l eged byPl ai nt i f f , sat i s fyi ng t he f i r s t prong.

    b. Second Prong: Relation to Forum

    The second r equi r ement f or speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on i s t hat t he

    cont acts const i t ut i ng pur posef ul avai l ment must be t he ones t hat

    gi ve r i se t o t he cur r ent sui t . We measur e t hi s requi r ement i n

    t er ms of but f or causat i on. Bancr of t , 223 F. 3d at 1088.

    Here, but f or Havas New Yor k s nat i onwi de adver t i sement

    campai gn al l egedl y usi ng Pl ai nt i f f s pr ot ected i nt el l ectual

    pr opert y, Pl ai nt i f f woul d not have been har med i n i t s home f or um,

    Cal i f or ni a. Thus, t he cont act s Havas New Yor k has wi t h t he f or um

    20

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    21/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    t he adver t i sement campai gn usi ng Pl ai nt i f f s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y

    ar e al so t he conduct t hat gave r i se t o t he sui t .

    c. Third Prong: Reasonableness of Jurisdiction

    To det er mi ne r easonabl eness , cour t s l ook t o seven f ai r nessf act or s f r om t he Supr eme Cour t s Bur ger Ki ng deci si on:

    ( 1) t he ext ent of a def endant s pur posef ul i nt er j ect i on[ i nt o t he f or um] ; ( 2) t he bur den on t he def endant i ndef endi ng i n t he f or um; ( 3) t he ext ent of conf l i ct wi t ht he sover ei gnt y of t he def endant s st at e; ( 4) t he f or umst at e s i nt er est i n adj udi cat i ng t he di sput e; ( 5) t hemost ef f i ci ent j udi ci al r esol ut i on of t he cont r over sy;( 6) t he i mpor t ance of t he f or um t o t he pl ai nt i f f si nt er est i n conveni ent and ef f ect i ve r el i ef ; and ( 7) t heexi st ence of an al t er nat i ve f or um. No one f act or i s

    di sposi t i ve; a cour t must bal ance al l seven.

    Panavi si on, 141 F. 3d at 1323 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

    Def endant s ar gue t hat t he exer ci se of j ur i sdi ct i on over Havas

    New Yor k woul d be unr easonabl e because i t has not r eached out t o

    Cal i f or ni a i n any way and def endi ng i n Cal i f or ni a woul d be a l ar ge

    bur den si nce i t i s based i n New Yor k, whi ch i s al so t he l ocat i on of

    al l r el evant wi t nesses and evi dence. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 14. )Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat t hi s showi ng i s not enough t o meet t he bur den

    t hat i s on Def endant af t er Pl ai nt i f f makes i t s pr i ma f aci e case of

    pr oper j ur i sdi ct i on. ( Opp n at 13. ) Pl ai nt i f f al so addr ess each

    of t he f actor s:

    Havas pur posef ul l y di r ected i t sel f i nt o Cal i f or ni a bycr eat i ng, desi gni ng and i mpl ement i ng the Adver t i si ngCampai gn f or a cl i ent whose pr esence i n Cal i f or ni a i s

    ext ensi ve, and speci f i cal l y desi gned i t t o t ar getCal i f or ni a cust omer s, usi ng asset s known t o bel ong t o aCal i f or ni a- based company.

    I n addi t i on, Havas regul ar l y ser vi ces Cal i f or ni a- basedcl i ent s, i ncl udi ng by t r avel i ng f or cl i ent meet i ngs. Havasal so t out s i t sel f as one of t he l ar gest i nt egr at edmar ket i ng communi cat i ons agenci es i n t he wor l d, and i t spubl i c st at ement s conf i r mt hat i t r egul ar l y wor ks wi t h i t svar i ous Cal i f or ni a af f i l i at es. Thus, i t undoubt edl y has

    21

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    22/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    t he r esour ces t o def end i t sel f i n Cal i f or ni a, wher e i t hasat l east 8 s i s ter of f i ces .

    Fi nal l y, t hi s Cour t has an over whel mi ng i nt er est i nadj udi cat i ng t hi s di sput e. Li ons Gat e mai nt ai ns i t spr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness her e, t he i nt el l ectual pr oper t yat i ssue r esi des her e, and, as t he New York Cour t hel d,

    Cal i f or ni a i s t he most conveni ent and ef f i ci ent f or um.( I d. at 14 ( par agr aph br eaks i nsert ed) . ) Def endant s Repl y does

    not addr ess t hese poi nt s or make f ur t her argument s as t o t he

    r easonabl eness of exer ci si ng per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on. ( Repl y at 13

    n. 4. )

    The Cour t f i nds t hat exerci se of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over

    Havas New Yor k i s r easonabl e. The Cour t descr i bed above t he ext ent

    of Havas New Yor k s pur posef ul di r ect i on t o t he f or um. Ther e i s a

    bur den on Havas New Yor k i n def endi ng i n Cal i f orni a, but t he bur den

    i s sl i ght consi der i ng t hat Havas New Yor k has r el at ed ent i t i es and

    busi ness wi t h cl i ent s i n Cal i f or ni a. Ther e i s no conf l i ct wi t h t he

    sover ei gnt y of New Yor k, par t i cul ar l y as t hi s case woul d be i n

    f eder al cour t i n ei t her st at e and t he New Yor k f eder al cour t

    t r ansf er r ed t he case t o t hi s j ur i sdi ct i on. Thi s st at e has a st r ongi nt er est i n adj udi cat i ng t he di sput e because the case concer ns t he

    pr ot ect i on of val uabl e i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y owned by a Cal i f or ni a-

    based company i n one of Cal i f orni a s most f amous and i mpor t ant

    i ndustr i es .

    As t here has al r eady been a case i n New Yor k t hat was

    t r ansf er r ed her e, and Def endant s di smi ssed t hat case vol unt ar i l y,

    i t i s most ef f i ci ent t o r esol ve t hi s di sput e i n one cour t and t o

    st op t he f or um t r ansf er s by bot h par t i es. The f or um i s i mpor t ant

    t o Pl ai nt i f f s abi l i t y t o have conveni ent and ef f ecti ve r el i ef

    because Pl ai nt i f f i s based her e and suf f er ed har m t o i t s

    i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y her e. Ther e i s anot her f or um avai l abl e New

    22

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    23/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    York but t he cour t t her e al r eady deci ded i t i s mor e conveni ent

    and appr opr i at e f or t he case as a whol e t o be deci ded i n t hi s

    f or um. Ther ef or e, t he Cour t hol ds t hat exer ci se of speci f i c

    per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on i s r easonabl e i n t hi s case.B. Copyright Act Preemption and 12(b)(6)

    The Copyr i ght Act preempts r i ght s under common l aw or st at e

    st at ut es t hat ar e equi val ent t o any of t he excl usi ve r i ght s wi t hi n

    t he gener al scope of copyr i ght as speci f i ed by sect i on 106. 17

    U. S. C. 301( a) . The Supr eme Cour t has extended t hi s pr i nci pl e of

    copyr i ght pr eempt i on t o t he LanhamAct and f ederal t r ademark

    pr ot ect i on. See Dast ar Cor p. v. Twent i et h Cent ur y Fox Fi l m Cor p. ,

    539 U. S. 23, 33- 38 ( 2003) ; see al so Mer cado Lat i no, I nc. v. I ndi o

    Prods. , I nc, No. CV 13- 01027 DDP, 2013 WL 2898224, at *4 ( C. D. Cal .

    J une 12, 2013) ( To t he ext ent t hat t he Copyr i ght Act provi des an

    adequat e remedy, t her ef or e, Lanham Act cl ai ms ar e pr eempt ed. ) .

    The Ni nth Ci r cui t has adopt ed a t wo- par t t est f or copyr i ght

    pr eempt i on. Fi r st , t he cour t det er mi ne[ s] whet her t he subj ectmat t er of t he st at e l aw cl ai m f al l s wi t hi n t he subj ect mat t er of

    copyr i ght as descr i bed i n 17 U. S. C. 102 and 103. Laws v. Sony

    Musi c Ent m t , I nc. , 448 F. 3d 1134, 1137 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( f oot not es

    omi t t ed) . Second, i f t he cour t det er mi nes t he subj ect mat t er i s

    wi t hi n copyr i ght , t hen t he cour t det er mi ne[ s] whet her t he r i ght s

    asser t ed under st at e l aw ar e equi val ent t o the ri ght s cont ai ned i n

    17 U. S. C. 106, whi ch ar t i cul at es t he excl usi ve r i ght s of

    copyr i ght hol der s. I d. at 1137- 38.

    1. Subject Matter of Copyright

    Fi r st , t he t r ademar k and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms must r el at e

    t o subj ect mat t er wi t hi n t he scope of t he Copyr i ght Act f or

    23

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    24/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    pr eempt i on t o appl y. Sect i on 102 of t he Copyr i ght Act extends

    copyr i ght pr ot ect i on t o or i gi nal wor ks of aut hor shi p f i xed i n any

    t angi bl e medi um of expr essi on. 17 U. S. C. 102( a) ; see al so i d.

    103 ( cover i ng compi l at i ons and der i vat i ve wor ks) . The st at utespeci f i cal l y i ncl udes mot i on pi ct ur es and ot her audi ovi sual

    wor ks, such as t he f i l m Dirty Dancing, as wel l as l i t er ar y wor ks,

    musi cal works, and choreogr aphi c works al l of whi ch may be at

    i ssue her e wi t h t he song, t he scr eenpl ay quot e, and t he dance l i f t .

    I d. 102. Ther ef or e, copyr i ght ed and copyr i ght abl e subj ect mat t er

    i s i nvol ved i n Pl ai nt i f f s unf ai r compet i t i on and t r ademar k causes

    of act i on.

    2. Exclusive Rights of Copyright & Dastar Preemption

    Second, t he r i ght asser t ed i n t he st at e l aw act i on must be

    equi val ent t o a r i ght pr ot ect ed under t he Copyr i ght Act f or

    pr eempt i on t o appl y. Sect i on 106 i n t he Copyr i ght Act out l i nes t he

    excl usi ve r i ght s of a copyr i ght owner , i ncl udi ng r epr oduct i on of

    t he copyr i ght ed wor k, pr epar at i on of der i vat i ve wor ks, di st r i but i onof t he wor k, and publ i c per f or mance and di spl ay of t he wor k. 17

    U. S. C. 106( 1) - ( 5) . To sur vi ve pr eempt i on, t he st at e cause of

    act i on must pr ot ect r i ght s t hat ar e qual i t at i vel y di f f er ent f r om

    t he r i ght s pr ot ect ed by copyr i ght : t he compl ai nt must al l ege an

    ext r a el ement t hat changes t he nat ur e of t he act i on. Gr osso v.

    Mi r amax Fi l m Corp. , 383 F. 3d 965, 968 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) , amended on

    deni al of r eh g 400 F. 3d 658 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) .

    The same ki nd of preempt i on pr i nci pl e appl i es f or f eder al

    Lanham Act causes of act i on as f or st ate and common- l aw causes of

    act i on. I n Dast ar , t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned t hat f eder al

    t r ademark l aw coul d not be r el i ed upon t o ext end copyr i ght or

    24

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    25/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    pat ent r i ght s. Dast ar , 539 U. S. at 33- 34. I nst ead, copyr i ght and

    pat ent r i ght s expi r e wi t h t hose r i ght s st at ut or y t i mel i nes, and

    not t he pot ent i al l y endl ess t r ademar k pr ot ect i ons. I d.

    Fur t her , t r ademar k l aw i s desi gned t o pr ot ect t he or i gi n ofgoods and pr event consumer conf usi on as t o t he sour ce of goods,

    not t o pr ot ect or i gi nal i t y or creat i vi t y, t hose bei ng pr ot ected

    by copyr i ght and pat ent l aw. I d. at 37. Thus, t he Cour t

    i nt er pr et ed or i gi n of goods i n t he Lanham Act t o r ef er t o t he

    pr oducer of t he t angi bl e goods t hat ar e of f er ed f or sal e, and not

    t o the aut hor of any i dea, concept , or communi cat i on embodi ed i n

    t hose goods. I d.

    The Cour t not ed t hat t hi s di d not prevent t he pl ai nt i f f i n

    t hat case f r om r ai si ng a cl ai m f or f al se adver t i si ng under

    43( a) ( 1) ( B) of t he Lanham Act , whi ch coul d occur , f or exampl e, i f

    t he def endant movi e pr oducer wer e, i n adver t i si ng or pr omot i on, t o

    gi ve pur chasers t he i mpr essi on t hat t he vi deo was qui t e di f f er ent

    f r om t hat seri es t hat t he pr oducer had subst ant i al l y copi ed. I d.at 38. I n t hat si t uat i on, t he Cour t expl ai ned, t her e woul d not be

    a r ever se passi ng of f cause of act i on under 43( a) ( 1) ( A) f or

    conf usi on as t o t he or i gi n of t he goods, but i nst ead t her e coul d be

    a cause of act i on f or mi sr epr esent at i on of t he nat ur e,

    char acter i st i cs, or qual i t i es of t he goods. I d.

    Def endant s cl ai m her e t hat t he gr avamen of Pl ai nt i f f s

    compl ai nt i s an al l eged vi ol at i on of t he r i ght s i n Pl ai nt i f f s

    copyr i ght ed f i l m, Dirty Dancing. ( Mot . Di smi ss at 20. ) As

    Def endant s see i t ,

    Li ons Gat e al l eges t hat Def endant s copi ed el ement s of t hemovi e Dirty Dancing, made modi f i cat i ons t o t hose el ement s,and t hen passed t hem of f as t hei r own or i gi nal cont ent i n

    25

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    26/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    t he Accused Ads; such act s caused conf usi on, mi st ake, ordecept i on as t o Def endant s ser vi ces or i gi nat i ng wi t h orbei ng endor sed by Li ons Gat e; and such act s have har medLi ons Gat e, i t s mar ks, t he movi e Dirty Dancing, Li onsGat e s l i censi ng pr ogr am, and i t s goodwi l l and r eput at i on.

    ( I d. at 20- 21. )Def endant s cl ai m t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cause of acti on f or f al se

    associ at i on and unf ai r compet i t i on under 1125( a) i s bar r ed under

    a pl ai n r eadi ng of Dast ar , whi ch deal t wi t h t he same st at ut or y

    sect i on i n t er ms of f al se desi gnat i on of or i gi n. ( I d. at 21- 23. )

    Def endant s argue t hat ot her cour t s have f ound cl ai ms of f al se

    associ at i on t he same as f al se desi gnat i on of or i gi n, whi ch was at

    i ssue i n Dast ar , and di f f er ent f r om Dast ar s car ve out f or

    mi sr epr esent at i on of t he nat ur e, char acter i st i cs, or qual i t i es

    pr ovi si on under 1125( a) ( 1) ( B) . Pl ai nt i f f s second cause of

    act i on i s f or Cal i f or ni a and common- l aw unf ai r compet i t i on

    pr ot ect i on, and Def endant s ci t e cases hol di ng t hat st at e and

    common- l aw pr ot ect i on i s subj ect t o the same resul t as f eder al

    unf ai r compet i t i on l aw i n t er ms of copyr i ght pr eempt i on. ( I d. at23- 24. )

    Def endant s gr oup t oget her i n t hei r anal ysi s t he t hi r d and

    f our t h causes of act i on f or t r ademar k i nf r i ngement and di l ut i on.

    Def endant s expl ai n t hat f or t he di l ut i on cause of act i on,

    Pl ai nt i f f s mar k i s not f amous as an or i gi nat or or mar k of goods,

    as t he st at ut e r equi r es i t i s f amous as par t of t he copyr i ght ed

    f i l m. ( I d. at 24 & n. 12. ) Fur t her , t he al l egat i ons as t o t hese

    t wo causes of act i on, Def endant s cl ai m, ar e r eal l y copyr i ght

    i nf r i ngement cl ai ms and t he FAC f ai l s t o est abl i sh any use of t he

    NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A CORNER mar k as an act ual t r ademar k. ( I d. at

    24- 25. )

    26

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    27/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    Pl ai nt i f f put s i t s ar gument s di f f er ent l y: Li ons Gat e owns

    t r ademar k r i ght s i n NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A CORNER, and Def endant s

    used t hat mar k, or a mar k conf usi ngl y si mi l ar t her et o, i n

    adver t i sement s f or t hei r f i nanci al ser vi ces i n a manner l i kel y t oconf use as t o thei r ser vi ces associ at i on wi t h, or endor sement by,

    Li ons Gat e. ( Opp n at 18- 19. ) Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat i t has made

    separ at e copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai ms, and t hat i t s di scussi on of

    t he f i l m, song, and dance l i f t i n r el at i on t o t he t r ademar k ar e

    based on t he f al se associ at i on cause of act i on. ( I d. at 19. )

    I mpor t ant l y, Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms, a si ngl e wor k may be pr ot ect ed as

    an or i gi nal wor k of aut horshi p under copyr i ght l aw and as a

    t r ademar k. ( I d. ( emphasi s omi t t ed) ( ci t i ng Tr i st ar Pi ctur es, I nc.

    v. Del Taco, I nc. , No. CV 99- 07655 DDP, 1999 WL 33260839, at *3

    ( C. D. Cal . Aug. 31, 1999) . ) Dast ar di d not change t hi s f act ,

    Pl ai nt i f f ar gues, ci t i ng cases. ( I d. at 22- 23. )

    The Cour t not es t hat t he FAC bl eeds t oget her i t s copyr i ght ,

    t r ademar k, and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms and t he f act s t hatsuppor t each cause of act i on maki ng i t chal l engi ng f or t he Cour t ,

    much l ess Def endant s, t o det er mi ne t he al l egedl y separ at e t heor i es

    under l yi ng t he di f f er ent r i ght s. As pl ed and ar gued, i t appear s

    t hat Pl ai nt i f f seeks t o use copyr i ght aspect s ei t her as a bol st er

    f or i t s t r ademar k and unf ai r compet i t i on cl ai ms, or as t he r eal

    basi s of t he cl ai ms t he l at t er of whi ch i s cer t ai nl y not

    per mi ssi bl e. Fur t her , i t i s uncl ear f r om t he FAC what t he al l eged

    mar k NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A CORNER has been or i s i nt ended to be

    used f or i n t er ms of consumer conf usi on; at oral ar gument ,

    Pl ai nt i f f s counsel r epr esent ed t hat t he mar k had been used on

    goods such as post er s, j our nal s, cl ot hi ng, and t he l i ke si nce 1987.

    27

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    28/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st cause of act i on, f al se associ at i on and

    unf ai r compet i t i on under 15 U. S. C. 1125( a) , i nvol ves t he same

    st at ut or y subsect i on as was i nvol ved i n Dast ar : 1125( a) ( 1) ( A) .

    See Dast ar , 539 U. S. at 31; Lexmar k I nt l , I nc. v. St at i c Cont r olComponent s, I nc. , 134 S. Ct . 1377, 1384 ( 2014) ( Sect i on 1125( a)

    t hus cr eat es t wo di st i nct bases of l i abi l i t y: f al se associ at i on,

    1125( a) ( 1) ( A) , and f al se adver t i si ng, 1125( a) ( 1) ( B) . ) . Fal se

    associ at i on and i t s r el at ed unf ai r compet i t i on i s t he same cl ai m as

    t hat of f al se desi gnat i on of or i gi n, j ust under a di f f er ent name.

    Thus, Pl ai nt i f f s cause of act i on woul d appear bar r ed under Dast ar ,

    as det ai l ed i n t he cases ci t ed by Def endant s. ( See Mot . Di smi ss at

    21- 23. ) Ther ef or e, t he Cour t di smi sses thi s cause of act i on wi t h

    pr ej udi ce because t he cause of act i on i s pr eempt ed and any

    amendment woul d be f ut i l e.

    Pl ai nt i f f s second and t hi r d causes of act i on, st at ut or y and

    common- l aw unf ai r compet i t i on and t r ademark i nf r i ngement under t he

    common l aw and 15 U. S. C. 1125( a) , f ace si mi l ar pr obl ems. Thesecauses of act i on ar e based on Def endant s essent i al l y copyi ng

    Pl ai nt i f f s i nt el l ectual pr oper t y and sl i ght l y changi ng t he wor ds

    cr eat i ng a der i vat i ve wor k, per haps and usi ng t he changed

    sent ence i n adver t i si ng i t s own pr oduct s. Under st andar d st at e and

    common- l aw pr eempt i on anal ysi s f r om t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , t he st at e

    and common- l aw cl ai ms al l eged here ar e pr eempted by copyr i ght l aw

    because t he same r i ght s ar e asser t ed i n t hese causes of act i on as

    ar e asser t ed i n t he copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cause of act i on, namel y

    r epr oduct i on and di st r i but i on of t he copyr i ght ed wor k and

    pr epar at i on of a der i vat i ve wor k. ( See FAC 59- 61, 65- 68. )

    28

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    29/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    For t he f eder al cl ai m, under Dast ar , t he same i ssue r egar di ng

    consumer conf usi on as t o t he or i gi n or associ at i on of t he goods

    ar i ses her e f or t r ademar k i nf r i ngement . Tr ademar k l aw i s desi gned

    t o pr otect consumers f r om, f or exampl e, t he Coca- Col a Company spassi ng of f i t s pr oduct as Pepsi - Col a or r ever se passi ng of f Pepsi -

    Col a as i t s pr oduct . Dast ar , 539 U. S. at 32. Thus, i f t he TD

    Def endant s wer e t o sel l post er s, j our nal s, and cl ot hi ng wi t h NOBODY

    PUTS BABY I N A CORNERon t hem, or t ake the goods Li ons Gate al l eges

    i t pr oduces or l i censes and put TD s own mar k on i t , t hen t her e

    woul d be a sol i d or i gi n cl ai m under t he Lanham Act , and sur el y any

    st at e and common- l aw equi val ent . Dast ar expl i ci t l y pr ovi ded f or

    t hat t he di st i nct i on i t dr ew f or or i gi n cl ai ms was bet ween t he

    pr oducer of t he t angi bl e goods t hat ar e of f er ed f or sal e

    ( al l owabl e) and t he aut hor of any i dea, concept , or communi cat i on

    embodi ed i n t hose goods ( pr eempt ed) . I d. at 37.

    The probl em i s t hat not hi ng l i ke t hat has occur r ed her e.

    Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Def endant s have used a sl i ght l y al t er edver si on of i t s t r ademar k i n adver t i si ng f or ser vi ces t hat Pl ai nt i f f

    ar gues wi l l cause consumer conf usi on as t o Pl ai nt i f f s endor sement

    or associ at i on wi t h t hose ser vi ces, even t hough Pl ai nt i f f does not

    al l ege i t pr act i ces or l i censes t hose ser vi ces. That i s, accor di ng

    t o Pl ai nt i f f , a consumer vi ewi ng t he TD adver t i sement s woul d be

    conf used as t o t he associ at i on of t he f i l m company Li ons Gat e ( or

    at l east t he movi e Dirty Dancing) wi t h TD s f i nanci al ser vi ces,

    even though the adver t i sement s cl ear l y pr omot e TD s f i nanci al

    ser vi ces and do not ment i on Li ons Gate or Dirty Dancing, or at t empt

    t o pass of f pr oduct s of TD as f r om Li ons Gat e or vi ce ver sa.

    Pl ai nt i f f s argue t hi s consumer conf usi on i s caused by the

    29

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    30/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    adver t i sement s use of Li ons Gate s t r ademark, NOBODY PUTS BABY I N

    A CORNER.

    The Cour t cannot see how t hi s i s di f f er ent f r om a copyr i ght

    i nf r i ngement cl ai m, or a cl ai m t hat Def endant s have f ai l ed t oobt ai n t he per mi ssi on of t he aut hor of t he i dea, concept , or

    communi cat i on embodi ed i n t hose goods Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t o have

    l i censed t o use i t s phr ase. Cf . Decker s Out door Cor p. v. J . C.

    Penny Co. , 45 F. Supp. 3d 1181, 1184- 86, 1188- 89 ( C. D. Cal . 2014) .

    Assumi ng copyr i ght s i n t he l i ne Nobody put s Baby i n a cor ner , or

    i n t he f i l m Dirty Dancing, an unaut hor i zed use of t he copyr i ght ed

    wor k i ncl udes copyi ng t he wor k and di st r i but i ng i t t o t he publ i c as

    wel l as maki ng an unaut hor i zed der i vat i ve wor k l i ke maki ng an

    adver t i sement usi ng copyr i ght ed wor k and di st r i but i ng t he ad t o t he

    publ i c.

    That i s what happened i n t hi s case, as al l eged i n t he FAC.

    Def endant s made an adver t i sement and used el ement s f r omt he f i l m

    Dirty Dancing: t hey used one of t he most f amous l i nes, Nobody put sBaby i n a corner , and made a new t ag l i ne f r om i t , Nobody put s

    your ol d 401k i n a corner ; t hey pl ayed on t he f amous concl udi ng

    dance scene wi t h i mages of a man l i f t i ng a pi ggy bank over head;

    t hey r ef erenced t he f amous song pl ayi ng dur i ng t hat dance wi t h

    anot her t ag l i ne, Because r et i r ement shoul d be t he t i me of your

    l i f e. These act i ons ar e pot ent i al vi ol at i ons of Pl ai nt i f f s

    copyr i ght i n Dirty Dancing, but t her e i s no t r ademar k i nf r i ngement

    or unf ai r compet i t i on based on t r ademar k i nf r i ngement .

    And whi l e t he Cour t acknowl edges t hat t here are i nst ances

    wher e a communi cat i ve good can be pr ot ect ed under bot h copyr i ght

    and t r ademar k, t hat i s not pr esent her e. See Tr i st ar Pi ct ur es,

    30

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    31/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    I nc. , No. CV 99- 07655 DDP, at *3. The pr obl em i n t hi s case i s t hat

    t he al l eged wr ongf ul conduct i s Def endant s unaut hor i zed use of

    NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A CORNER. Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat t hi s woul d

    cause consumer conf usi on as t o Li on s Gat e s associ at i on wi t h t heTD Def endant s and t hei r ser vi ces. But t hi s exact cl ai m and t heor y

    can and i s made i n Pl ai nt i f f s copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cause of

    act i on: t hat t he pr ot ect ed el ement s of Dirty Dancing, i ncl udi ng t he

    l i ne Nobody put s Baby i n a cor ner , wer e publ i cl y used wi t hout t he

    aut hor i zat i on of t he sol e l i censor of Dirty Dancing, Li ons Gat e.

    ( FAC 82- 88. )

    The onl y di f f er ence bet ween Pl ai nt i f f s copyr i ght and

    t r ademar k cl ai ms i s t hat i n t he l at t er cl ai ms, Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege

    t hat consumer s wi l l be conf used by t he unaut hor i zed use as t o Li ons

    Gat e s associ at i on wi t h t he TD Def endant s and t hei r servi ces. But

    t he same rights ar e al l eged i n t he causes of act i on t he r i ght t o

    be the excl usi ve l i censor and user of t he sent ence Nobody put s

    Baby i n a cor ner . Ther ef or e, Pl ai nt i f f s t r ademar k i nf r i ngementand unf ai r compet i t i on causes of act i on ar e al so di smi ssed wi t h

    pr ej udi ce because t hey are pr eempt ed by t he Copyr i ght Act and so

    any amendment woul d be f ut i l e.

    The cases Pl ai nt i f f r el i es on t o show t her e i s a separ at e

    t r ademar k cl ai m her e ar e not per suasi ve. Fi r st , t hi s Cour t s

    deci si on i n Tr i st ar Pi ct ur es was pre- Dast ar and so does not answer

    t he quest i ons pr esent ed i n t hi s case. Pol ar Bear Pr ods. , I nc. v.

    Ti mex Cor p. , 384 F. 3d 700 ( 9th Ci r . 2004) , was post - Dast ar , but di d

    not deal wi t h Dast ar at al l or copyr i ght pr eempt i on i n any

    si gni f i cant way. I d. at 721. I t cer t ai nl y does not st and f or t he

    pr oposi t i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f ci t es i t f or : Tr ademar k cl ai ms cannot

    31

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    32/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    be pr eempt ed by t he Copyr i ght Act . ( Opp n at 17. ) Pl ai nt i f f s

    ot her cases ar e i napposi t e because t hey i nvol ve di f f er ent f act ual

    scenar i os and causes of act i on, wi t h r esul t i ng di f f er ent t heor i es

    of t r ademark pr otect i on and pr eempt i on. See, e. g. , Ward v. Andr ewsMcMeel Pub. , LLC, 963 F. Supp. 2d 222, 235- 36 ( S. D. N. Y. 2013)

    ( t r ade dr ess) ; Pr of oot , I nc. v. MSD Consumer Car e, I nc. , No. 11-

    7079, 2012 WL 1231984, at *3 ( D. N. J . Apr . 12, 2012) ( t r ade dr ess) ;

    Per f ect 10, I nc. v. Googl e, I nc. , No. CV 04- 9484 AHM, 2008 WL

    4217837, at *8- 9 ( C. D. Cal . J ul y 16, 2008) ( st at e l aw causes of

    act i on i ncl udi ng publ i ci t y and mi sappr opr i at i on) .

    Pl ai nt i f f s st r ongest cases ar e Bach v. For ever Li vi ng

    Product s U. S. , I nc. , 473 F. Supp. 2d 1110 ( W. D. Wash. 2007) , and

    But l er v. Tar get Cor p. , 323 F. Supp. 2d 1052 ( C. D. Cal . 2004) .

    Bach i nvol ved t he def endant s use of t he t i t l e, char act er , name,

    t ext , and phot ogr aphs f r omt he book Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

    Bach, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1113. The def endant s not onl y used t he

    i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y associ at ed wi t h t he book i n t hei r ownmat er i al s, but t hey al so st at ed i n adver t i si ng t hei r pr oduct s t hat

    t he br and i s t he J onat han br and and t hat J onat han i s r eal l y the

    basi s of what For ever i s about . I d. at 1113- 14. The cour t

    anal yzed whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s copyr i ght cl ai ms pr eempt ed t hei r

    t r ademark and t r ade dr ess cl ai ms and determi ned t hat t here were

    el ement s of bot h:

    Pl ai nt i f f s r i ght s i n t he name and title of J onat hanLi vi ngst on Seagul l and t he trade dress of t he book cover .. . ar e pr ot ect ed under t r ademar k l aw, not copyr i ght l aw,because i t i s t he name, t i t l e, and t r ade dr ess t hat ar e t hesour ce- i dent i f yi ng mar ks associ at ed wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s. AndPl ai nt i f f s r i ght s i n t he J LS character, t hephotographt hat FLP used as i t s l ogo, and t he por t i ons of t hecopyr i ght ed t ext used by FLP, ar e pr ot ect ed under copyr i ghtl aw, not t r ademar k l aw, because the char act er , text, and

    32

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    33/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    i mages i n Jonathan Livingston Seagull ar e t he ar t i st scr eat i ve wor k.

    I d. at 1118. Di st i ngui shi ng Dast ar , t he cour t st at ed t hat t hi s

    case di d not i nvol ve t he use of t r ademar k l aw t o pr osecut e

    pl agi ar i sm of creat i ve wor k.

    Thi s case does not per suade t hi s Cour t t o f i nd t hat t he

    t r ademark and copyr i ght cl ai ms her e can go f or ward. NOBODY PUTS

    BABY I N A CORNER i s a par t of t he text of t he copyr i ght ed wor k

    Dirty Dancing. To t he ext ent Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue i t i s al so a sour ce-

    i dent i f yi ng mar k associ at ed wi t h Li ons Gat e, t he Cour t not es t hat

    cases have hel d, l i ke Bach her e, t hat where copyr i ght and t r ademar kr i ght s are f ound i n t he same expr essi ve pr oduct , t hey pr ot ect

    di f f er ent par t s of t hat good, j ust l i ke t he cour t descr i bed above

    i n Bach. See al so Tr i st ar Pi ct ur es, No. CV 99- 07655, at *3 ( ci t i ng

    Uni ver sal Ci t y St udi os, I nc. v. Ni nt endo Co. , 578 F. Supp. 911

    ( S. D. N. Y. 1983) ) . That i s not t he case her e, par t i cul ar l y wher e

    t he FAC al l eges t he t r ademar k cl ai ms whi l e r el yi ng not onl y on t he

    al l eged mar k, but al so on ot her el ement s f r om t he f i l m Dirty

    Dancing.

    But l er i nvol ved t he def endant s use of pl ai nt i f f s copyr i ght ed

    musi cal work and sound recor di ng, Rebirth of Slick (Cool like Dat).

    But l er , 323 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. The def endant pl ayed t he sound

    r ecor di ng as t he soundt r ack t o i t s nat i onal adver t i si ng campai gn,

    and al so had ads and si gns at st or es st at i ng, J eans Li ke That , Deni m Li ke That , Shoes Li ke That , and so on. I d. The

    pl ai nt i f f s sued f or i nf r i ngement of t he r i ght t o publ i ci t y, unf ai r

    busi ness pr act i ces, and Lanham Act cl ai ms. I d. Ever y cause of

    act i on based on t he def endant s use of t he sound r ecor di ng was hel d

    33

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    34/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    pr eempt ed by t he Copyr i ght Act . I d. at 1060. However , t he r i ght

    of publ i ci t y, unf ai r busi ness pr act i ces based on t he use of t he

    pl ai nt i f f s i dent i t y, and t he Lanham Act cl ai m based on f al se

    endor sement t hr ough use of t he pl ai nt i f f s i dent i t y wer e al l f oundnot pr eempt ed. I d.

    The opi ni on never ment i ons Dast ar , but t hi s makes sense once

    t he causes of act i on ar e exami ned. The pl ai nt i f f s i n But l er wer e

    not l i ke Pl ai nt i f f her e and cl ai mi ng sol el y t hat t he use of a

    f amous l i ne, Cool l i ke Dat , as modi f i ed and used i n adver t i si ng

    was a vi ol at i on of t he pl ai nt i f f s t r ademar k r i ght s i n usi ng t hat

    phr ase. I nst ead, t he pl ai nt i f f s i n But l er cl ai med t hat t he use of

    somet hi ng so cl osel y associ at ed to t hei r f amous per sona was a

    mi sappr opr i at i on of t hei r publ i ci t y and a f al se endor sement wher e

    t he mar k f or Lanham Act pur poses i s t hei r cel ebr i t y i dent i t y.

    Such a t heor y of Lanham Act and unf ai r busi ness pr act i ces causes of

    act i on i s not si mi l ar t o t he one espoused by Pl ai nt i f f i n t hi s

    case, and not necessar i l y cover ed by Dast ar .Last l y, Pl ai nt i f f has a di l ut i on cause of act i on under bot h

    f eder al and st at e l aw. ( FAC 74- 81 ( ci t i ng 15 U. S. C.

    1125( c) ( 1) , 1127; Cal . Bus. & Prof . Code 14247) . ) These causes

    of act i on have the same el ement s: ( 1) t he mar k must be f amous and

    di st i nct i ve; ( 2) t he def endant must use t he mar k i n commer ce; ( 3)

    def endant s use must begi n af t er t he mark i s f amous; and ( 4)

    def endant s use must be l i kel y to cause di l ut i on, such as by (a)

    bl ur r i ng or ( b) t ar ni shment . J ada Toys, I nc. v. Mat t el , I nc. , 518

    F. 3d 628, 634 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) . These causes of act i on r equi r e t he

    def endant t o be usi ng a mar k that i s i dent i cal or near l y so t o t he

    pl ai nt i f f s mark. I d.

    34

  • 7/26/2019 Lions Gate v. TD Ameritrade - Dirty Dancing opinion.pdf

    35/35

    1

    2

    3

    45

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    1718

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    Pl ai nt i f f s FAC pl eads t hat t he mark NOBODY PUTS BABY I N A

    CORNER i s f amous and di st i nct i ve, and was such bef ore Def endant s

    ever used i t i n t hei r ads. Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms that Def endant s have

    used t he mark i n Def endant s ads, but t hat i s not t he same asal l egi ng t hat Def endant s use Pl ai nt i f f s mar k, or a mar k near l y

    i dent i cal t o i t , as t he mar k f or Def endant s own goods whi ch

    woul d be an al l egat i on t hat appear s cl ear l y cont r adi ct ed by the

    f act s of t hi s case. Thus, i t does not appear t hat as pl ed,

    Def endant s have used t he mark i n commerce i n t he sense t hat t he l aw

    r equi r es. Ther e does not appear t o be any di sput e or cont r ar y

    f act s t hat Pl ai nt i f f coul d pl ead t o show t hat Def endant s used t he

    al l egedl y f amous mark as Def endant s own mark or t o i dent i f y

    Def endant s servi ces. Ther ef or e, whi l e not per haps pr eempt ed by

    t he Copyr i ght Act , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he di l ut i on cause of

    act i on i s al so di smi ssed wi t h pr ej udi ce under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) f or

    f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m because t her e ar e no f act s t hat woul d

    support t hi s cause of act i on so any amendment woul d be f ut i l e.IV. CONCLUSION

    For al l t he r easons di scussed above, t he Cour t GRANTS i n par t

    and DENI ES i n part Def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss .

    I T I S SO ORDERED.

    Dat ed: March 14, 2016

    DEAN D. PREGERSON

    Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge