Newsted

Echo Drain v. Newsted

Good Law
307 F. Supp. 2d 1116·2003 WL 22074880·68 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1203·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25253
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2003CV024568JFW(FMOX)California5,909 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walter, J.

On July 15, 2003, Defendants Jason Newsted, Echobrain, and Chophouse Records, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion For Summary Judgment Of All Plaintiffs Claims. On August 11, 2003, Plaintiff Echo Drain filed its Opposition. On August 18, 2003, Defendants filed a Reply. The Motion came for hearing on August 25, 2003. After hearing oral argument on the Motion, the Court took the matter under submission. After reviewing the moving, opposing, and reply papers and hearing oral argument, the Court rules as follows:

I. Facts And Procedural Background

On June 11, 2002, Echo Drain filed a complaint against Jason Newsted, Echo-brain, and Chophouse Records, Inc. On October 4, 2002, Echo Drain filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging nine claims for relief: (1) Reverse confusion under the Lanham Act; (2) Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d)(1)(a) (cybersquatting); (3) False designation of origin; (4) Trademark disparagement; (5) Common law trademark infringement; (6) Violation of California Unfair Trade Practices Act; (7) Unfair competition; (8) Dilution of mark and injury to business reputation; and (9) Declaratory relief.

Defendants originally noticed their summary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.