Shakeys Pizza Asia Ventures, Inc v. Pcjv USA, LLC

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1292(a), and we affirm.

1. Shakey’s Pizza Asia Ventures, Inc. (SPAVI)’s trademark infringement

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

24-7084 claims are not barred by issue or claim preclusion based on the state court litigation

between PCJV and Cinco Corporation (Cinco). First, as to issue preclusion, no

“identical issue” was “actually litigated” in the state court action, which centered

on control of PCJV, not whether PCJV owned or had a right to use the trademarks

registered in Cinco’s name. Syverson v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 472 F.3d 1072,

1078 (9th Cir. 2007). Second, the state court litigation did not involve “the same

‘claim’ or cause of action,” nor “identical parties or privies” for purposes of claim

preclusion given that SPAVI does not claim any of the contractual rights that were

at issue in the state court action. Media Rts. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922

F.3d 1014, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Thus, neither doctrine bars

SPAVI’s trademark…