Phillip Morris Usa Inc. v. Shalabi

• Citation: 352 F.Supp.2d 1067
• Decision Date: 25 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. CV 03-4037 GAF.,CV 03-4037 GAF.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: PHILLIP MORRIS USA INC., Plaintiff, v. Samir SHALABI, et al., Defendants.

352 F.Supp.2d 1067

PHILLIP MORRIS USA INC., Plaintiff, v. Samir SHALABI, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 03-4037 GAF.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

October 25, 2004.

Carlos Solis, Michael T. Williams, John C. Ulin, Paul Maynard Kakuske, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Los Angeles, CA, Kenneth L. Chernof, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Milord A. Keshishian, Milord & Associates, Roman P. Mosqueda, Roman P. Mosqueda Law Offices, Karl P. Schlecht, Roger Barrett James, Parker Stanbury, Gilbert Hyongwon Lee, Gilbert H. Lee

Law Offices, Kevin Robert Riva, Samuel J. Long Law Offices, Ronald A. Schy, Ronald A. Schy Law Offices, Kevin John McNaughton, Schaffer Lax McNaughton & Chen, Marc A. Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, Khachik Akhkashian, Diamond Burt & Akhakashian, Craig J. Mariam, Gallagher & Gallagher, Milord A. Keshishian, Milord & Associates, Carlos Solis, Michael T. Williams, John C. Ulin, Paul Maynard Kakuske, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Los Angeles, CA, Solange Kea, Solange Kea Law Offices, Edward M. Daley, Edward M. Daley Law Offices, Long Beach, CA, Mene Phansavath, Anaheim, CA, Charles H. Manh, Charles Manh & Associates, Tien V. Doan, Tien V. Doan Law Offices, Westminster, CA, John Allen Bunnett, Downey, CA, Nancy Long Cole, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Cerritos, CA, Mark E. Mahler, Mark E. Mahler Law Offices, Beverly Hills, CA, Morris Stone, Morris Stone Law Offices, Huntington Beach, CA, Kenneth A. Bryant, Kenneth A. Bryant Law Offices, Santa Ana, CA, Curtis L. Metzgar, Even Crandall Wade & Lowe, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Benard C. Udeozor, Benard C. Udeozor Law Offices, Inglewood, CA, Karen L. McKinney, Karen L. McKinney Law Offices, Murrieta, CA, Paul Douglas Draper, Paul D. Draper Law Offices, Capistrano Beach, CA, Robert A. Fairfield, Robert A. Fairfield Law Offices, Torrance, CA, John L. Simonson, John L. Simonson Law Offices, Van Nuys, CA, Eoin L. Kreditor, Maher & Maher, Orange, CA, William George Bissell, William G. Bissell Law Offices, Irvine, CA, Joel Mark, Nordman Cormany Hair & Compton, Oxnard, CA, Laya Dogmetchi, Laura R. McFeaters, Cummins & White, Newport Beach, CA, Ricky W. Poon, Ricky W. Poon Law Offices, Alhambra, CA, Albert Lee, Albert Lee Law Offices, Pasadena, CA, Jonathan Allan Klein, Kelly Herlihy & Klein, San Francisco, CA, Alyce Stephanie Minsky, Bernard W. Minsky Law Offices, Huntington Park, CA, Fred A. Wong, Wong & Mak, Alhambra, CA, Lawrence E. Heller, Heller & Edwards, Beverly Hills, CA, Kenneth L. Chernof, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Roger Panameno, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Thai Ly, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

Hong Li, Rosemead, CA, pro se.

Tammy Tran, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Bac Srun Ung, Artesia, CA, pro se.

Nigha B. Baig, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.

Frank Chu, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

GNS Cigarette Cheaper Center Inc., Bellflower, CA, pro se.

Hazim Abdulzahra, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Suna Chhim, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

Chhor Meng, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

Lim Meng Hoa, Northridge, CA, pro se.

David Phai, Compton, CA, pro se.

Duong Loc Tangphuc, Rosemead, CA, pro se.

Kabir Humayun, Huntington Park, CA, pro se.

Eduardo Rios Leon, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Abdu Shahin, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

Salvador Tirado, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Sing Ung, Artesia, CA, pro se.

Kimsann Say, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

Seak Solina Say, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

Hang J. Kim, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.

Jong J. Kim, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.

Gregory L. Ganter, Tustin, CA, pro se.

Janeatte Y. Ganter, Tustin, CA, pro se.

Horacio Cervantes, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Dong S. Bae, Sherman Oaks, CA, pro se.

Ki B. Jung, Sherman Oaks, CA, pro se.

Adela Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Flora Rahman, Burbank, CA, pro se.

Angelina Quinonez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.

Roberto G. Quinonez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.

Bushara Hawatmeh, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.

Syed Mohammed Faizi, Long Beach, CA, pro se.

Kim Chea, East Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

FEESS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The present trademark infringement lawsuit is one of many brought by Plaintiff Phillip Morris USA, Inc., against retailers who are allegedly selling counterfeit MARLBORO and MARLBORO LIGHT cigarettes under Phillip Morris's trademarks. Most of the lawsuits have now been settled or resolved through default judgments. The present motion for summary judgment addresses four of the remaining cases. three of the four defendants who are the subject of the motion have not even filed opposition.

In these four cases, Plaintiff has established through undisputed facts that the four defendant retailers have sold, under the MARLBORO or MARLBORO LIGHT trademarks, cigarettes that were not manufactured by Phillip Morris. The evidence presented establishes, as a matter of law, Phillip Morris's right to have judgment entered on its claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition. Accordingly, as set forth in greater detail below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's are entitled to the requested injunction and to damages of $10,000 as to each defendant and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

For decades Plaintiff Phillip Morris USA has owned valid and protectable trademarks for MARLBORO® and MARLBORO LIGHTS® within the United States. (Req. Judicial Notice ¶¶ 1-6, Exs. A-F). Specifically, Plaintiff owns MARLBORO®, patent registration number ("PRN") 68,502; MARLBORO® Red Label, PRN 938,510; MARLBORO® LIGHTS, PRN 1,039,412; and MARLBORO® LIGHTS Label, PRN 1,039,413, collectively known as the Marlboro Marks. (Id. Exs. A-D).¹

As part of an ongoing effort to protect their rights to the Marlboro Marks, Plaintiff launched a series of investigations in February and March of 2003 from which the current claims arose. During those months, investigators retained by Phillip Morris USA² requested and purchased one pack of what appeared to be MARLBORO® brand cigarettes and one pack of what appeared to be MARLBORO LIGHTS® brand cigarettes from each defendant.³ (Taylor Decl. Exs. 3-6 ¶ 3). Immediately thereafter, each pack was marked as evidence and labeled with the account number, store name, store address, price, purchaser and date of purchase. (Id. Exs. 3-6 ¶ 4). The labeled cigarettes were then placed within a sealed and separately labeled zip-lock bag and sent to an RQA affiliate for testing.⁴ (Id. Exs. 3-6 ¶ 5).

Later, the packs were re-tested by the Phillip Morris USA Brand Integrity Group, each time reaching the same conclusions as the RQA testing. (Lowe Decl. ¶¶ 27-29, 33-35, 39-41, 45-47). The results showed that both packs of cigarettes purchased from Defendants La Paloma Bar and Sundara Lao Market were counterfeit while only the MARLBORO® LIGHTS purchased from Oscar's Texaco and Toluca Lake Tobacco-1 failed the tests.⁵ (Id.).

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion For Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Thus, when addressing a motion for summary judgment, this Court must decide whether there exist "any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. See id. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A party opposing a properly made and supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere denials but "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). In particular, when the non-moving party bears the burden of proving an element essential to its case, that party must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of that element or be subject to summary judgment. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, (1986).

An issue is genuine if evidence is produced that would allow a reasonable jury to reach a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The Court will assume the truth of direct evidence set forth by the opposing party. See Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 507 (9th Cir. 1992). However, where circumstantial evidence is presented, the Court may consider the plausibility and reasonableness of inferences arising therefrom. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505; TW Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631-32 (9th Cir.1987). In that regard, "a mere `scintilla' of evidence will not be sufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment; rather, the nonmoving party must introduce some `significant probative evidence tending to support the claim.'" Summers v. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1997)(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505); Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir.1987)(holding that summary judgment may be granted if "the evidence is merely colorable ... or is not significantly probative").

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants Engaged in Unlawful Conduct Under Applicable Trademark Law

The record clearly indicates that Defendants' conduct constituted trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1),⁶ and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq (" §...