Telegram Messenger Inc v. Lantah, LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 24, 20203:18-cv-02811California3,416 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

22 Plaintiff Telegram is a large technology company best known for its electronic messaging 23 service. See Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 16–19. In 2017, Telegram began developing a cryptocurrency 24 exchange network, using the name GRAM for the cryptocurrency. Mot. (dkt. 69) at 1. To finance 25 this venture, Telegram executed over $1.5 billion worth of Purchase Agreements with investors, 26 promising future delivery of GRAMs. Compl. ¶¶ 28–34; Mot. at 1. 27 Defendant Lantah is a small technology company founded in 2017 with the intention of issuing a cryptocurrency also called GRAM. See Opp’n (dkt. 73) at 1. By 2018, Lantah submitted an application for the GRAM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Id. at 3. 4 A. Procedural History 5 On May 11, 2018, Telegram filed this suit against Lantah, bringing claims of false 6 designation of origin, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition. See generally 7 Compl. On June 8, 2018, Lantah filed its answer, along with counterclaims alleging that Lantah, 8 not Telegram, had priority over the GRAM mark. See generally Answer (dkt. 14). 9 Telegram then moved for a preliminary…

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.