Stemcell Technologies Canada Inc. v. StemExpress, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEMCELL TECHNOLOGIES CANADA Case No. 21-cv-01594-VC INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SUMMARY

v. JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

STEMEXPRESS, LLC, et al., MOTION FOR RELIEF Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 154, 181, 193

StemExpress’s motion for summary judgment on Stemcell’s claims is granted in part and denied in part. Stemcell’s motion for summary judgment on StemExpress’s claims is denied in its entirety. This order assumes the reader is familiar with the case.

I. StemExpress’s Motion

Claim 3: Lanham Act § 38. Summary judgment is granted because Stemcell has not provided evidence that Dyer intended to defraud the Patent and Trademark Office. Nor has Stemcell identified anything false in the application. At most, Stemcell has shown that Dyer misunderstood trademark law. Evidence that Dyer was given better information after she filed the application does not support a claim that she intended to defraud the PTO when she applied for the mark. Claim 4: Declaratory relief regarding trademark rights. At the…