Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.

73 Page 1 of 16

1 Stephen D. Lucas (SBN: 074726)

Email: slucas@lucashaverkamp.com
2 LUCAS & HAVERKAMP LAW FIRM APC
9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 325
3 San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 535-4000
4 Facsimile: (858) 535-4001
(Local Counsel)
5
Douglas A. Rettew (pro hac vice application in process)
6 Email: doug.rettew@finnegan.com
Anna B. Naydonov (pro hac vice application in process)
7 Email: anna.naydonov@finnegan.com
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
8 901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413
9 Telephone: (202) 408-4427
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
10
Attorneys for Defendant
11 UNDER ARMOUR, INC.
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16 LIGHTS OUT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Case No. 17-cv-0194
California Limited Liability Company,
17 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
and SHAWNE MERRIMAN,
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER
18 an individual, ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION
Plaintiffs, TO DISMISS
19
Date: April 10, 2017
20 v.
Time: 2:30 p.m.
21 Judge: Hon. John A. Houston
UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Courtroom: 13B
22 a Maryland Corporation,
23
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
1 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.74 Page 2 of 16

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

4 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................2

5 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4

6 A. The Standard for a Motion to Dismiss .....................................................................4

7 B. On a Motion to Dismiss, the Court May Consider Documents on Which the

Complaint Necessarily Relies ..................................................................................5
8
C. Plaintiffs Breach-of-Contract Claims Should Be Dismissed..................................6
9
1. Courts Have Dismissed Breach-of-Contract Claims under Fed. R. Civ.
10 P. 12(b)(6) Where They Were Unsupported by the Plain Language of
the Contract ..................................................................................................6
11
2. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege That Under Armours Hit the
12 Lights T-Shirt Graphic Violates the Agreement ........................................7

13 3. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege that Uses of Lights Out for a

Mobile Game and/or Footwear Violate the Agreement ...............................7
14
D. Plaintiffs Counterfeiting Claims Should Be Dismissed .........................................8
15
1. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege a Counterfeiting Claim Against Use
16 of Lights Out on a Mobile Game or Sneakers Because They Own No
Registrations for Those Goods.....................................................................8
17
2. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege that the Hit the Lights Graphic Is
18 a Counterfeit of the LIGHTS OUT Marks ...................................................9

19 3. Plaintiffs Statutory Damages Demand of Up to $2 Million Should be

Dismissed/Stricken ....................................................................................10
20
IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.75 Page 3 of 16

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s)

3 Federal Cases
4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) .....................................................................................................................4, 5
5
6 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) .........................................................................................................................4
7
Campbell v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
8 No. 97-9426CBM(AJWX), 1998 WL 657488 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 1998) ........................................7
9 Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. J.M.D. All-Star Import and Export Inc.,
486 F.Supp.2d 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)................................................................................................9
10
In re Countrywide Fin. Corp.,
11
No. 10-cv-0257, 2010 WL 11462824 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2010) ....................................................6
12
Daniels-Hall v. Natl Educ. Assn,
13 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................................5

14 Gidding v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,

No. 15-cv-01176-HSG, 2016 WL 4088865 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) ............................................6
15
GMA Accessories, Inc. v. BOP, LLC,
16 765 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y 2011)...............................................................................................9
17
Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc.,
18 499 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007) .........................................................................................................5

19 James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co.,

602 Fed. Appx 360 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................6
20
Jang v. Dupont E.I. De Nemours & Co.,
21 No. 15-cv-03719 NC, 2015 WL 7351476 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015).............................................6
22 Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey,
23 717 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 2017 WL 670282 (2017) ........................................9, 10

24 Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc.,

658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................8
25
Marder v. Lopez,
26 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................................5
27 Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
28 12 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (W.D. Wash. 2014)........................................................................................9

ii 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.76 Page 4 of 16

1 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intl Serv. Assn,

494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................................4
2
Playboy Enters. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk, Inc.,
3 No. CIV. A. 96-CV-6961, 1998 WL 288423 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1998) ............................................8
4 Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of Am.,
5 442 P.2d 377 (Cal. 1968) .................................................................................................................6

6 Sanders v. Brown,
504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................................4
7
Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.,
8 669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................................6
9 Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................................4
10
11 United States v. Able Time, Inc.,
545 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................................8
12
United States v. Ritchie,
13 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................5
14 Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
284 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................................5
15
16 Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,
328 F.3d 1136 ..................................................................................................................................5
17
Federal Statutes
18
15 U.S.C. 1116(d) ...............................................................................................................................8
19
15 U.S.C. 1117 ..............................................................................................................................2, 10
20
15 U.S.C. 1127 ....................................................................................................................................9
21
Rules
22
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .....................................................................................................................................4

24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..............................................................................................................1, 4, 5, 6

25 Other Authorities

26 4 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

25:15 (4th ed. 2017) .....................................................................................................................8, 9
27
28
iii 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.77 Page 5 of 16

1 Defendant Under Armour, Inc. submits this Memorandum of Points and

2 Authorities in Support of Its Partial Motion to Dismiss Lights Out Holdings, LLC
3 (LOH) and Shawne Merrimans (collectively Plaintiffs) breach-of-contract and
4 counterfeiting claims.
5 I. INTRODUCTION
6 In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Under Armours
7 uses of the phrase Hit the Lights on a t-shirt and Lights Out on a mobile electronic
8 game and footwear breach a March 2015 settlement agreement between the parties
9 (the Agreement) and also constitute trademark counterfeiting. Both claims should
10 be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) because they are facially implausible and fail
11 to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support the relief sought.
12 Plaintiffs breach-of-contract claims fail because the plain language of the
13 Agreement does not prohibit the allegedly unlawful conduct. The Agreement
14 provides only that Under Armour will cease all use of, and will not use or register in
15 the future, the terms LIGHTS OUT as a trademark, service mark, or other source
16 identifier to identify apparel products. The Agreement imposes no restrictions on
17 any uses of Hit the Lights (or Lights alone apart from the phrase Lights Out).
18 Nor does the Agreement prohibit use of Lights Out in connection with products
19 other than apparel (e.g., mobile games or footwear).1
20 Plaintiffs counterfeiting claims should also be dismissed because Plaintiffs
21 cannot show, as they must, that Under Armour used the identical (or substantially
22
1
As noted in Under Armours Answer, contrary to Plaintiffs allegations, Under
23
Armour never offered a Lights Out shoe. Rather, certain unrelated third-party
24 publications and websites used those terms to describe a glow-in-the-dark shoe that
Under Armour made specifically for Steph Curry, which was never available for sale
25
or to the public. Nevertheless, for purposes of this motion, Under Armour treats
26 Plaintiffs allegations as true. Moreover, while not at issue in this motion, the
Agreement did not prohibit Under Armours ability to use lights out fairly in a
27
merely descriptive, nominative, and/or generic manner, or as otherwise permitted by
28 lawwhich is precisely what Under Armour did.
1 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.78 Page 6 of 16

1 indistinguishable) mark covered by Plaintiffs asserted federal registrations, for the

2 same goods listed in those registrations.
3 Under Armours purported uses of Lights Out for a mobile game and
4 footwear is not counterfeiting because Plaintiffs asserted trademark registrations for
5 LIGHTS OUT dont cover either of those goods. And, Under Armours use of Hit
6 the Lights for a t-shirt graphic is not counterfeiting because Plaintiffs asserted
7 registrations dont cover that mark.
8 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
9 On February 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this action against Under Armour alleging
10 trademark infringement, unfair competition, false endorsement, and breach of
11 contract. The Complaint alleges that in March 2015 Under Armour entered into a
12 confidential settlement agreement with Plaintiffs concerning the terms Lights Out.
13 (Complaint 26, Dkt. #1.) Paragraph 1 of the Agreement provides that Under
14 Armour will cease all use of, and will not use or register in the future, the terms
15 LIGHTS OUT as a trademark, service mark, or other source identifier to identify
16 apparel products. (Ex. A to Decl. of Anna B. Naydonov, February 24, 2017
17 (Naydonov Decl.).) Plaintiffs contend that Under Armour breached Paragraph 1 of
18 the Agreement by (1) selling t-shirts with the phrase Hits the Lights, (2) purportedly
19 marketing athletic footwear named Lights Out, and (3) promoting a Lights Out
20 mobile game (and footwear in connection with the game). (Complaint 20-24, 26,
21 and 73.)
22 The Complaint does not contain a separate trademark counterfeiting count.
23 But as part of their trademark infringement claim, Plaintiffs contend that Under
24 Armours uses of Hit the Lights and Lights Out constitutes [sic] a counterfeit,
25 which was willfully used, and thus Lights Out Holdings is entitled to statutory
26 damages of up to $2 million per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold,
27 offered for sale, or distributed, under 15 U.S.C. 1117. (Complaint 40.) In their
28
2 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.79 Page 7 of 16

1 prayer for relief, Plaintiffs repeat their demand for [s]tatutory damages of up to $2
2 million for use of a counterfeit mark. (Complaint, Prayer for Relief 8.)
3 Plaintiffs assert ownership of two trademark registrations for the mark LIGHTS
4 OUT Registration No. 3990916 (the '916 Registration) and No. 2885212 (the
5 '212 Registration). (Complaint 14-17.)
6 The '916 Registration covers the following goods/services, none of which are
7 mobile games or footwear:
8 Footballs.
9 Online retail store featuring sporting goods, sports memorabilia,
clothing; promoting the goods and services of others through the
10 issuance of product and service endorsements by a sports celebrity,
11 and through advertising appearances for products and services by a
sports celebrity.
12
Providing an on-line electronic bulletin board for transmission of
13
messages among computer users concerning a professional football
14 player and sports celebrity.
15 Providing a website featuring a the[sic] biography and biographical
16 information about appearances, accomplishments, exploits, and
charitable and philanthropic works of a college and professional
17 football player; entertainment services, namely, personal appearances
18 and speeches by a sports celebrity; entertainment services, namely,
radio and television appearances and commentary by a sports
19 celebrity.
20 (Ex. C to Complaint.)
21 The '212 Registration also does not cover footwear or mobile games, but rather:
22 Clothing for men, women and children, namely, bottoms, boxer shorts, caps, hats,
23 headwear, night wear, shirts, shorts, sleepwear, sweatshirts, tank tops, tops, T-shirts,
24 underwear. (Ex. B to Naydonov Decl., TESS/TSDR Printouts from the PTO
25 Website for the '212 Registration.) 2
26
27 2
The registration certificate attached to Plaintiffs Complaint (see Ex. A) does not
28 accurately reflect the current status of the '212 Registration (which is noted above).
(continued)
3 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.80 Page 8 of 16

1 III. ARGUMENT
2 A. The Standard for Motion to Dismiss
3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a
4 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
5 This standard does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with
6 nothing more than conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
7 Rule 8 requires a claim to relief that is not just possible, but plausible on its face.
8 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
9 (2007)). A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
10 the elements of a cause of action will not do. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
11 555). And while all allegations of material fact in the complaint must be taken as true
12 and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, [c]onclusory
13 allegations and unreasonable inferences . . . are insufficient to defeat a motion to
14 dismiss. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007).
15 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is therefore proper when the complaint either
16 (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a
17 cognizable legal theory. Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013).
18 Dismissal of the complaint is required if the facts are insufficient to support a
19 cognizable claim. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intl Serv. Assn, 494 F.3d 788, 794 (9th
20 Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs claims of
21
22 (continued)
23 Specifically, in 2010, Plaintiffs abandoned and deleted numerous goods from the '212
Registration. (Ex. C to Naydonov Decl., Plaintiffs Section 8 Declaration Filed with
24 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the U.S. PTO).) Additionally, Plaintiffs
25 allege that LOH filed an intent-to-use Application Serial No. 86888080 for the mark
LIGHTS OUT for footwear, athletic footwear with the U.S. PTO. (Complaint
26 18.) That application, however, has not matured into a registration and thus cannot
27 support a counterfeiting claim.

28
4 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.81 Page 9 of 16

1 contributory and vicarious trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair

2 competition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).
3 As discussed below, Plaintiffs allegations are exactly the kinds of facially
4 implausible, boilerplate legal conclusions that cannot support valid claims for breach
5 of contract or counterfeiting under Ashcroft.
6 B. On a Motion to Dismiss, the Court May Consider Documents on Which the
7 Complaint Necessarily Relies
8 A court may consider evidence on which the complaint necessarily relies if:
9 (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central the plaintiffs
10 claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6)
11 motion. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). The court may treat
12 such a document as part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are
13 true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). United States v.
14 Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest
15 Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (same); Warren v. Fox Family
16 Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1141 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that a court may
17 consider documents on which the complaint necessarily relies and whose
18 authenticity is not contested (citation omitted)); Van Buskirk v. Cable News
19 Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that [u]nder the
20 incorporation by reference rule of this Circuit, a court may look beyond the
21 pleadings without converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary
22 judgment); Daniels-Hall v. Natl Educ. Assn, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)
23 (considering evidence on which the complaint necessarily relies in evaluating a
24 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim).
25 Here, the Complaint necessarily relies on the 2015 Agreement for Plaintiffs
26 breach-of-contract claims. Because the Agreement is central to Plaintiffs contractual
27 claims, the Complaint refers to the Agreement in multiple places, and the Agreements
28
5 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.82 Page 10 of 16

1 authenticity is not questioned, the Court may rely on the Agreement (a full copy of
2 which is attached) for purposes of a motion to dismiss. (Ex. A to Naydonov Decl.)
3 Additionally, Plaintiffs rely on the '916 and '212 Registrations for their
4 trademark infringement and counterfeiting allegations. Because Plaintiffs failed to
5 attach an up-to-date copy of the '212 Registration, this Court may look beyond the
6 four corners of the Complaint and rely on and take judicial notice of the U.S. PTO
7 online database records, which accurately reflect the registrations current status and
8 scope. Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1016 n.9 (9th Cir. 2012)
9 (a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting
10 motion into one for summary judgment).
11 C. Plaintiffs Breach-of-Contract Claims Should Be Dismissed
12 1. Courts Have Dismissed Breach-of-Contract Claims under Fed. R.
13 Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Where They Were Unsupported by the Plain
14 Language of the Contract
15 To plead a breach-of-contract claim under California law, a plaintiff must
16 allege: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse of non-
17 performance, (3) defendants breach of the contract, and (4) the resulting damages to
18 plaintiff. Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of Am., 442 P.2d 377, 381 (Cal. 1968).
19 Courts routinely dismiss breach-of-contract claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
20 12(b)(6) where the plain language of the agreement on its face does not support the
21 claim. See James L. Turlke Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., 602 F. Appx 360, 363 n.1
22 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of breach-of-contract claims without leave to
23 amend on the basis of the plain language of the contract alone); Gidding v. Zurich
24 Am. Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-01176-HSG, 2016 WL 4088865, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2,
25 2016) (dismissing a breach-of-contract claim with prejudice where the claim
26 contradicted the plain language of the contract); Jang v. Dupont E.I. De Nemours &
27 Co., No. 15-cv-03719 NC, 2015 WL 7351476, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015)
28 (granting motion to dismiss breach-of-contract claim with prejudice where plaintiffs
6 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.83 Page 11 of 16

1 reading of the contract was at odds with the plain meaning of the contractual
2 language); In re Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 10-cv-0257, 2010 WL 11462824, at *7
3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2010) (holding that [b]ased on the language of the contracts
4 themselves, Plaintiffs have failed to state a valid breach of contract claim.); Campbell
5 v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 97-9426CBM(AJWX), 1998 WL 657488, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
6 Aug. 6, 1998) (holding that Defendants acts were consistent with the plain language
7 of the insurance contract and therefore did not constitute a breach of the contract.).
8 2. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege That Under Armours Hit the
9 Lights T-Shirt Graphic Violates the Agreement
10 Under Paragraph 1 of the Agreement, Under Armour agreed to cease all use
11 of, and not use or register in the future, the terms LIGHTS OUT as a trademark,
12 service mark, or other source identifier to identify apparel products. (Ex. A to
13 Naydonov Decl.) Plaintiffs allege that use of the phrase Hit the Lights on t-shirts
14 constitute[s] a separate breach of the Settlement Agreement. (Complaint 24,
15 73.) But the Agreements plain language only restricts Under Armours use of the
16 phrase LIGHTS OUTnot Hit the Lights or any other terms. Consequently,
17 Plaintiffs breach-of-contract claim against that use should be dismissed.
18 3. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege that Uses of Lights Out for a
19 Mobile Game and/or Footwear Violate the Agreement
20 Plaintiffs remaining breach-of-contract claims against purported uses of
21 Lights Out in connection with a mobile game and footwear fare no better. The
22 Agreement prohibits use of LIGHTS OUT as a trademark, service mark, or other
23 source identifier to identify apparel products. The Complaint does not allege (nor
24 can it) that Under Armour uses Lights Out for apparel. And the Agreement does not
25 prohibit the use of Lights Out on a mobile game or footwear. These claims should
26 thus also be dismissed.
27 ///
28 ///
7 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.84 Page 12 of 16

1 D. Plaintiffs Counterfeiting Claims Should Be Dismissed

2 1. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege a Counterfeiting Claim Against
3 Use of Lights Out on a Mobile Game or Sneakers Because They
4 Own No Registrations for Those Goods
5 To support their counterfeiting claims, Plaintiffs must show that they own a
6 valid trademark registration, and that Under Armour used the same mark for the same
7 goods specifically covered by that registration. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc
8 Sols., Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (Section 1116(d) requires that the mark in
9 question be (1) a non-genuine mark identical to the registered, genuine mark of another,
10 where (2) the genuine mark was registered for use on the same goods to which the infringer
11 applied the mark); United States v. Able Time, Inc., 545 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir. 2008)
12 (Congress included an explicit identity of goods or services requirement in both the
13 civil and criminal provisions of the 1984 Act); Playboy Enters. v. Universal Tel-A-
14 Talk, Inc., No. CIV. A. 96-CV-6961, 1998 WL 288423, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. June 3,
15 1998) (a claim for trademark counterfeiting lies only against a defendants
16 counterfeit uses of a mark on the same goods or services as are covered by the
17 plaintiffs registration of that mark; refusing leave to amend the complaint to add a
18 counterfeiting count where plaintiff failed to allege defendants counterfeited the BUNNY
19 and Rabbit Head marks on the same goods or services covered by the marks
20 registrations); 4 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR
21 COMPETITION 25:15 (4th ed. 2017) (The statutory phrase a counterfeit of a mark
22 that is registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark
23 Office for such goods or services [15 U.S.C. 1116(d)] was intended to require that
24 the accused goods or services must be the same as those for which the plaintiffs mark
25 is registered.).
26 Plaintiffs cannot plausibly show that Under Armours alleged uses of Lights
27 Out for a mobile game and footwear constitute a counterfeit because Plaintiffs
28
8 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.85 Page 13 of 16

1 have not asserted any registrations for the mark LIGHTS OUT for either of those
2 products. As such, this claim should be dismissed.
3 2. Plaintiffs Cannot Plausibly Allege that Hit the Lights Graphic Is a
4 Counterfeit of the LIGHTS OUT Marks
5 Hit the Lights is not counterfeit because it is not identical with, or
6 substantially indistinguishable from Plaintiffs registered LIGHTS OUT mark. 15
7 U.S.C. 1127. As explained in the leading trademark treatise, the test of identical
8 with, or substantially indistinguishable from requires a closer degree of similarity
9 than is required for traditional trademark infringement or unfair competition. 4
10 MCCARTHY, supra at 25:10. Indeed, even the same words may not meet the
11 substantially indistinguishable requirement if their fonts or stylizations differ.
12 Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, 717 F.3d 295, 315 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 2017 WL
13 670282 (2017) (defendants OWN YOUR POWER was not a counterfeit of plaintiffs
14 OWN YOUR POWER mark because of the differences in the font, color, and
15 capitalization). Similarly, marks that differ by two or more letters, are not likely to
16 be considered counterfeit. Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. J.M.D. All-Star Import and
17 Export Inc., 486 F.Supp.2d 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding no trademark counterfeiting
18 as a matter of law because COLDDATE is not substantially indistinguishable from
19 COLGATE). See also GMA Accessories, Inc. v. BOP, LLC, 765 F. Supp. 2d 457
20 (S.D.N.Y 2011) (CHARLOTTE SOLNICKI is not substantially indistinguishable
21 from, and thus not a counterfeit of, plaintiffs CHARLOTTE mark as a matter of law).
22 Where, as here, the marks at issue are not identical or substantially
23 indistinguishable, Courts have dismissed counterfeiting claims on a motion to
24 dismiss. See, e.g., Winfrey, 717 F.3d at 315 (affirming dismissal where plaintiff [did]
25 not state a plausible claim for trademark counterfeiting as defendants OWN YOUR
26 POWER differed in font/stylization from plaintiffs OWN YOUR POWER); Milo &
27 Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1352 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (granting
28
9 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.86 Page 14 of 16

1 motion to dismiss counterfeiting claim where plaintiffs exhibits revealed nothing

2 resembling Plaintiffs registered mark).
3 Dismissal here is even more warranted than in Winfrey because the marks
4 differences go far beyond one or two letters or distinct fonts/stylizations. The only
5 similarity between LIGHTS OUT and Hit the Lights is the word Lights. Because
6 the alleged marks are neither identical nor substantially indistinguishable, this
7 claim should be dismissed.
8 3. Plaintiffs Statutory Damages Demand of Up to $2 Million Should be
9 Dismissed/Stricken
10 Plaintiffs have demanded statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit
11 mark per type of goods or services sold. Such relief is only available for
12 counterfeiting claims. 15 U.S.C. 1117(c). As shown above, Plaintiffs cannot
13 plausibly sustain any counterfeiting claim. This relief should thus be stricken.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 For the above reasons and authorities, Under Armour respectfully requests that
16 the Court grant its partial motion to dismiss.
17
18 Respectfully submitted,
19
LUCAS & HAVERKAMP LAW FIRM
20
21 Dated: February 24, 2017 By: s/ Stephen D. Lucas
22 STEPHEN D. LUCAS (SBN: 074726)
23 slucas@lucashaverkamp.com

24 Attorney for Defendant

25 UNDER ARMOUR, INC.

26
27
28
10 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.87 Page 15 of 16

1 Of Counsel:
2
Douglas A. Rettew
3 doug.rettew@finnegan.com
(pro hac vice application in process)
4
Anna B. Naydonov
5 anna.naydonov@finnegan.com
(pro hac vice application in process)
6
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
7 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
8
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 3:17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS Document 8-1 Filed 02/24/17 PageID.88 Page 16 of 16

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this adversary proceeding. I am
4 employed in San Diego County, State of California. My business address is 9171
5 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 325, San Diego, California 92122; telephone number (858)
6 535-4000; email address: dfisher@lucashaverkamp.com.
7 On February 24, 2017, I serve the following document described as:
8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
9
on the following interested parties as follows:
10
Andrew D. Skale
11 askale@mintz.com
Wynter L. Deagle
12 wldeagle@mintz.com
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
13 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
14 Telephone: (858) 314-1500
Facsimile: (858) 314-1501
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16 LIGHTS OUT HOLDINGS, LLC
and SHAWNE MERRIMAN
17
18 on the following interested parties as follows:
19
BY CM/ECF ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By transmitting electronically the
20
document(s) to the recipients designated on the courts CM/ECF electronic
21 service list.
22
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
23
whose direction the service was made. Executed this 24th day of February, 2017, at
24
San Diego, California.
25
s/ Diane Fisher
26
Diane Fisher
27
28
12 17-cv-00194-JAH-NLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC.S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS