Vinluan-Jularbal v. Redbubble, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-00573-JAM-JDP |
| Parties | KAMILLE FAYE VINLUAN-JULARBAL, Plaintiff, v. REDBUBBLE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Kamille Faye Vinluan-Jularbal (“Plaintiff”) purchased two sweatshirts from Defendant Redbubble (“Defendant”): one with a United Nations symbol and the other with the words “the Dadalorian” which she believes were counterfeit. See First Am. Compl (“FAC”) ¶¶ 35, 38, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff then brought this class action against Defendant alleging violations of (1) California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and (2) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). See generally FAC. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 16. Defendant opposed this Motion, see Opp'n, ECF No. 36, to which Plaintiff replied. See Reply, ECF No. 39. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is denied.[1]
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Founded in 2006, Redbubble allows users to upload designs that can be affixed to various products at the request of consumers. FAC ¶¶ 6-7. When a consumer places an order Redbubble's software automatically transmits the order to a third-party manufacturer who prints the image onto a blank product to be shipped and delivered to the customer. FAC ¶ 9; Decl. of Daniel Vyrda in Supp of Def.'s Mot for Prelim. Inj. (“Vydra Decl.) ¶¶ 3, 8 11-12. Plaintiff made two purchases from Redbubble: the first, a United Nations sweatshirt, the second a Dadalorian sweatshirt. FAC ¶¶ 35, 38. Plaintiff alleges the items were counterfeit. Id. ¶ 43. She claims she was unaware of their infringing nature at the time of purchase and would not have bought them had she known they weren't genuine. Id.
Plaintiff believes a high volume of the images available on Redbubble's website are counterfeit. Id. This is due in part to the fact Redbubble does not proactively police its website for counterfeit or infringing items. Id. ¶ 18. Rather Plaintiff claims it is Redbubble's policy to only review items when it receives a takedown notice from or been sued by the rights holder. Id. Further, Redbubble often does not ban an infringing user until they have had several complaints. Id. ¶ 19.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, alleging violations of the UCL and CLRA. Plaintiff, stressing the harm done to both the trademark holders and consumers by such infringement, seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin Redbubble from selling any counterfeit products on its website pending resolution of this action. See Mot. at 23-25
II. OPINION
Courts may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonable be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b).
Plaintiff has requested the Court take judicial notice of two Australian Federal Court decisions; two declarations filed in a Northern District of California case; the fact the United Nations Organization logo and wordmark are registered with the United State Patent and Trademark Office; and a jury verdict in a case in the Central District of California. See Pl.'s First Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 17; Pl.'s Second Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 40. The court filings and registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office are all proper subjects of judicial notice. See Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (); see also Cerner Middle E. Ltd. v. iCapital, LLC, 939 F.3d 1016, 1023 n.8 (9th Cir. 2019) (); Threshold Enter. Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc., 445 F.Supp.3d 139, 145 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“Materials in the online files of the USPTO and other matters of public record are proper subjects of judicial notice.”) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request. In doing so the Court takes judicial notice only of the existence of these documents, not disputed facts contained within. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018).
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. “One element of the case-or-controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 566 U.S. 398, 408 (2013). In order to have standing “[t]o seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that [they are] under threat of suffering [an] ‘injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009).
In Davisson v. Kimberley-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit held that a “previously deceived consumer may have standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling, even though the consumer now knows or suspects that the advertising was false at the time of the original purchase, because the consumer may suffer an ‘actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical' threat of future harm.” Id. at 969. In so holding the Court rejected the argument that a plaintiff does not have standing to seek injunctive relief because “plaintiffs who are already aware of the deceptive nature of an advertisement are not likely to be misled into buying the relevant product in the future and, therefore, are not capable of being harmed again in the same way.” Id. at 968 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Rather, the Court explained that such plaintiffs still suffer a threat of future harm which in some cases “may be the consumer's plausible allegations that she will be unable to rely on the product's advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to.” Id. at 969-70.
Defendant argues Plaintiff does not have standing because she “swears under oath that she will never ‘knowingly support' Redbubble based on her unsubstantiated beliefs about items available for sale on its Marketplace, and so admits that she will never again purchase anything on the platform in the future.” Opp'n at 10 . The Court disagrees. While Plaintiff stated that she “would never knowingly support a company selling illegal products in violation of federal law” that does not mean she faces no risk of future harm. Pl.'s Decl. in Supp. Of Mot. ¶ 9. Because Plaintiff states that she would make further purchases from Redbubble in the future if she could be assured the products were not counterfeits, Pl.'s Decl. in Reply ¶ 4, ECF No. 53-1, Plaintiff suffers a threat of future harm of being “unable to rely on the product's [authenticity], and so will not purchase the product although she would like to.” See Davisson, 889 F.3d at 969-70. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief.
To have standing under the UCL or CLRA, Plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss of deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” Kwikset Corp v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310, 322 (2011).
Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to establish standing under the UCL or CLRA as Plaintiff hasn't shown or offered any convincing evidence that the items she purchased were counterfeit. See Opp'n at 12. Plaintiff argues that she has shown an economic injury as she explains she paid more for the sweatshirt than she would have if she had known it was counterfeit. See Pl.'s Reply at 3. But Plaintiff's argument fails to address Defendant's argument that she offers insufficient evidence to support this claim and, instead, asks this Court to simply assume that the items she purchased are counterfeit. See Def.'s Opp'n at 12 (). The Court refuses to reach any such conclusion or finding regarding the items purchased by Plaintiff at this early stage of the litigation.[2]
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Alternatively, “serious questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial