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