Think Rubix LLC v. Be Woke.Vote

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a consultant firm that assists groups that engage in “systems of change to transform culture.” In August 2017, Plaintiff began using the “WOKE VOTE” mark as part its services. Plaintiff owns a registered trademark, “WOKE VOTE.” Plaintiff displays the “WOKE VOTE” mark through its website, social media platforms, and at various in-person 1Doc. Nos. 9, 10. 2In general, when a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it may transfer the case “to any district or division in which it could have been brought” if doing so would “be in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Goldlawr, Inc. v. Helman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 (1962) (“The language of § 1406(a) is amply broad enough to authorize the transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing [its] case as to venue, whether the court in which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not.”). Here, the Eastern District of California appears to be the appropriate venue. 3Doc. No. 1, p. 5. 4Id. 5Id. at 5-6. events. Defendants7 participate in “an initiative aimed to encourage participation and inspiration of younger generations . . . to…