Harbour

Harbour v. Farquhar

Good Law
245 F. App'x 582
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 2007No. 05-55693California315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Whane Harbour and Gee-Gee 100 Productions, Inc. (collectively, “Gee-Gee”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claim that Kurt Farquhar and Farquhar Productions, Inc. (collectively, “Farquhar”) violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), by licensing Gee-Gee’s digitalized musical compositions to various television and film producers and falsely representing that Farquhar had provided the musical services, composed the music, *583 and produced the digital goods. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 174 F.3d 1016 , 1018 (9th Cir.1999). Because Gee-Gee’s claim for false designation of origin is precluded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 , 123 S.Ct. 2041 , 156 L.Ed.2d 18 (2003), we affirm.

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act creates a federal cause of action against a person who used in commerce either “a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation” in connection with “any goods or services.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). In Dastar, the Supreme Court grappled with the correct…

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.