Cluster 727770

Resources, Ltd. v. Triton Oil, 97 F.3d 1460, *3 (9th Cir. 1996) (“the Ninth Circuit has 20 recognized that severe undercapitalization can satisfy the element of injustice to litigants if the 21 capital input is insufficient to meet obligations that could reasonably be expected to arise in the 22 normal course of the corporation’s business.”).

(ECF No. 5 ¶¶ 22, 25; ECF No. 20, 8 Exs. 21–23); Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir.), as 9 modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he party claiming ownership [of the mark] 10 must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.”).

As set forth below, the Court is not persuaded. 23 In trademark law, “the standard test of ownership is priority of use.” See Sengoku 24 Works Ltd. v. RMC Int'l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 25 (9th Cir. 1996).

To acquire ownership of a 12 trademark it is not enough to have invented the mark first or even to have registered it first; the party claiming ownership 13 must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services. 14 15 Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 16 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing J.

See Sengoku 28 Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1220 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 1 (9th Cir. 1996). “[I]n other words, if the non-registrant can show that he used the mark in 2 commerce first, then the registration may be invalidated.” Id. 3 First, CasperLabs contends that Zamfir’s allegations “demonstrate that his 4 consulting services were about Casper but not called ‘Casper,’ dooming his trademark- 5 cancellation and infringement claims.” (See Mot. …

See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219-20 (9th Cir.), as 10 modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996); Zobmondo Entm’t, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 11 F.3d 1108 , 1114 (9th Cir. 2010).

See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1220 (9th Cir.), as 2 modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996).

See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir.1996) (“It is axiomatic in trademark law that the standard test of ownership is priority of use.”).

In cases involving a trademark dispute “between a manufacturer and distributor, courts will look first to any agreement between the parties regarding trademark rights.” Haggar, 906 F. Supp. 2d at 111 (quoting Tecnimed SRL v. Kidz- Med, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 395, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d, 462 F. App’x 31 (2d Cir. 2012)); see also Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1220 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Premier Dental Products v…