-JCG Interplay Entertainment Corp v. TopWare Interactive, Inc et al, No. 2:2010cv07168 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction 5 . The Motion for Preliminary In junction is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that pending trial of this action Defendant TopWare Interactive, Inc., its officers, agents, employees, affiliated companies, and those in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined re &qu ot;BATTLE CHESS," etc. The Preliminary Injunction shall become effective immediately on all persons who have actual knowledge of this Order and no additional security shall be required beyond the corporate security bond in the amount of $15,000 previously posted by Interplay. See document for details. (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JCG Interplay Entertainment Corp v. TopWare Interactive, Inc et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 13 Christopher J. Nelson (Bar No. 205161) cnelson@interplay.com Interplay Entertainment Corp. Suite 502 12301 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-979-7070 310-979-7171 (fax) Attorney for Plaintiff Interplay Entertainment Corp. 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ) Case No.: CV 10-7168-DMG (JCGx) ) ) CORP., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY vs. ) INJUNCTION TOPWARE INTERACTIVE,INC., and ) ) ) Does 1-20, ) Cc:FISCAL ) Defendants. ) INTERPLAY ENTERTAIMENT 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for 20 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary 21 Injunction (“Ex Parte Application”). For the reasons set forth below, 22 the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. 23 I. 24 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 25 On September 24, 2010, Plaintiff Interplay Entertainment (“Interplay”) filed 26 a complaint against Defendant TopWare Interactive, Inc. (“TopWare”) and Doe 27 defendants 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for trademark infringement 28 under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and unfair competition under 1 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Dockets.Justia.com 1 California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. 2 Interplay filed the Ex Parte Application on October 4, 2010. On October 7, 2010, 3 the Court granted Interplay's Ex Parte Application and issued the TRO, which 4 became effective upon Interplay's posting a corporate security bond in the amount 5 of $15,000. Interplay served TopWare with the TRO on October 8, 2010. 6 Interplay obtained the required bond and filed it on October 13, 2010. 7 On October 21, 2010, the Court held a hearing on its Order to Show Cause 8 Why a Preliminary Injunction should not issue. TopWare did not file a written 9 opposition and did not appear at the hearing. Following discussions with Plaintiff's 10 counsel, who attended the hearing, the Court grants the Preliminary Injunction for 11 the same reasons set forth in its Order re TRO, as set forth more fully herein. 12 II. 13 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14 For more than 25 years, Interplay has developed and published video game 15 software for personal computers and gaming consoles. Interplay is responsible for 16 many successful video game series, including Fallout, Earthworm Jim, Baldur’s 17 Gate, Clayfighter, Descent, and, at issue here, Battle Chess. TopWare is also a 18 video game developer and publisher and is an affiliate or subsidiary of Zuxxez 19 Entertainment AG. Both TopWare and Zuxxez are Interplay’s competitors. (Caen 20 Decl. ¶ 2.) 21 The Battle Chess series of video games is an original property that Interplay 22 developed. The original Battle Chess, released in 1988, is a computerized chess 23 game with a fantasy theme. Its basic concept is to have computer animated chess 24 pieces carry out a player’s moves by stalking across the chess board to engage in 25 animated combat. Interplay has published two sequels, Battle Chess: Chinese 26 Chess and Battle Chess: 4000, as well as several multi-game collections using 27 various combinations of the titles. Interplay’s successful development and 28 promotion of Battle Chess video games for more than two decades has caused 2 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 Battle Chess to become a valuable property. Interplay has sold Battle Chess 2 through both online and traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. Interplay is 3 currently developing an updated version of Battle Chess, which it expects to 4 release in 2011. (Id. ¶ 3.) 5 Interplay has registered the trademark Battle Chess with the United States 6 Patent and Trade Office, which has assigned the mark registration number 7 3,519,455. (Id., Ex. 1.) Interplay has continuously sold Battle Chess and its 8 sequels and compilations and has not abandoned the Battle Chess mark. Interplay 9 has sold thousands of copies of Battle Chess games. The purchasing public has 10 11 come to associate the Battle Chess mark with Interplay. (Id. ¶ 4.) On or around June 8, 2010, Interplay learned that TopWare had launched a 12 website promoting a chess video game that TopWare was developing called Battle 13 vs. Chess. The website’s address is www.battlevschess.com. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) 14 Based on announcements and promotional material released by TopWare, its 15 parent company, and its distributors, Interplay believes that TopWare’s chess video 16 game will have a nearly identical concept as Interplay’s Battle Chess, featuring 17 fantasy-themed animated chess pieces battling to capture squares on a chess board. 18 Interplay believes that TopWare will sell Battle vs. Chess to the same target 19 customers—video gamers, particularly strategy game and chess enthusiasts— 20 through the same distribution channels as Battle Chess. (Id. ¶ 7.) 21 After learning of Battle vs. Chess, Interplay wrote to TopWare on June 9, 22 2010 to express its concerns regarding the Battle vs. Chess title. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 4.) 23 Interplay alerted TopWare to the existence of the protected Battle Chess mark and 24 requested that TopWare discontinue use of the Battle vs. Chess trademark in 25 association with its fantasy chess video games. (Id. ¶ 8.) 26 TopWare, through its managing director, responded that it would continue to 27 use the Battle vs. Chess mark but wished to “discuss” the issue. Interplay believes 28 that TopWare has licensed third parties, including SouthPeak Interactive 3 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 Corporation, to publish and distribute Battle vs. Chess in the United States market. 2 TopWare also lists its video game for pre-order sales through major retailers, 3 including Target, Best Buy, GameStop, and others. (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. 5.) TopWare has changed its release date at least four times. (Id. ¶ 12.) On 4 5 September 2, 2010, SouthPeak, issued a press release announcing that Battle vs. 6 Chess would be released commercially on September 28, 2010. (Id. ¶ 10.) On 7 September 3, 2010, Interplay again wrote to TopWare demanding that it cease and 8 desist its use of the Battle vs. Chess mark. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. 6.) Throughout August 9 and September 2010, the parties negotiated over use of the Battle Chess mark. At 10 one point, Interplay believed that it had reached an agreement with TopWare to 11 end the dispute. This agreement, however, was never consummated. (Id. ¶ 11.) As 12 of October 4, 2010, the ship date for Battle vs. Chess listed on various retailers’ 13 websites is October 26, 2010. (Id. ¶ 12, Ex. 7.) Video game companies typically 14 manufacture physical copies of video game discs and packaging approximately 15 two weeks prior to the release date. (Id. ¶ 13.) Fantasy-themed chess games are a niche market. Consumers buying Battle 16 17 vs. Chess will likely be diverted from buying Interplay’s original Battle Chess 18 games or soon-to-be-released Battle Chess sequel. TopWare’s Battle vs. Chess is 19 currently listed for sale between $20 and $40. The “retro” versions of Interplay’s 20 Battle Chess lineup generally sell for around $6. Interplay has not yet set the price 21 for its forthcoming Battle Chess game. (Id. ¶ 14.) Interplay has no control over the content or quality of Battle vs. Chess. 22 23 TopWare does not have a license to use Interplay’s Battle Chess mark and has 24 never sought approval to use any game design, artwork, software code, packaging 25 or advertising with Interplay’s mark. (Id. ¶ 15.) 26 // 27 // 28 // 4 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 III. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of preliminary 4 injunctions. The purpose of such injunctive relief is to preserve the rights and 5 relative positions of the parties, i.e., the status quo, until a final judgment issues. 6 See U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) 7 (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 8 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)). An injunction is an exercise of a court’s equitable authority, 9 which should not be invoked as a matter of course, and “only after taking into 10 account all of the circumstances that bear on the need for prospective relief.” 11 Salazar v. Buono, __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1803, 1816, 176 L.Ed.2d 634 (2010). 12 A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show that (1) it is likely to succeed on the 13 merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 14 relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the 15 public interest. Toyo Tire Holdings Of Ams. Inc. v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 16 F.3d 975, 982 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., __ 17 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). An injunction may be 18 appropriate when a plaintiff raises “serious questions going to the merits” and 19 demonstrates that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” 20 Alliance For Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3665149, at *8 (9th 21 Cir. Sept. 22, 2010) (quoting The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th 22 Cir. 2008)). 23 IV. 24 DISCUSSION 25 26 27 A. Interplay Demonstrates A Likelihood Of Success On The Merits In claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1115, “the critical determination is ‘whether an alleged trademark infringer’s use of a mark creates a 28 5 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 likelihood that the consuming public will be confused as to who makes what 2 product.’” Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 632 (9th Cir. 2008) 3 (quoting Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2003)) 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). To evaluate whether the use of a mark is likely 5 to confuse consumers, courts consider eight non-exhaustive factors (the “Sleekcraft 6 factors”) whose relative importance will vary from case to case: “(1) the similarity 7 of the marks; (2) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; (3) the proximity or 8 relatedness of the goods or services; (4) the defendant’s intent in selecting the 9 mark; (5) evidence of actual confusion; (6) the marketing channels used; (7) the 10 likelihood of expansion into other markets; and (8) the degree of care likely to be 11 exercised by purchasers of the defendant’s product.” Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. 12 Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3258703, at *2 13 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2010) (citing AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348- 14 49 (9th Cir. 1979)). The inquiry may proceed in any order and a court need not 15 address every factor. One Indus., LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distrib., Inc., 578 F.3d 1154, 16 1162 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1739, 176 L.Ed.2d 213 (2010). 17 1. Similarity Of The Marks 18 The marks at issue are highly similar. TopWare’s mark is identical to 19 Interplay’s mark but for the insertion of the abbreviated word “vs.” in between the 20 words “Battle” and “Chess.” The concept of “vs.,” however, already inheres in the 21 word “battle” and does not distinguish TopWare’s mark from Battle Chess. See 22 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enters., Inc., 220 F. Supp. 2d 289, 23 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[T]he addition of descriptive terms does not alter a 24 trademark such that a new mark is created.”). In addition, the two marks look 25 strikingly similar. Both use an “Old English” font style and the words “Battle” and 26 “Chess” appear prominently in similar places. The “vs.” in TopWare’s mark is de- 27 emphasized by its incorporation into sword artwork. 28 6 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 2. 2 The second Sleekcraft factor assesses whether the goods at issue are related 3 or complementary. “Where the goods are related or complementary, the danger of 4 confusion is heightened.” M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entm’t, 421 F.3d 1073, 5 1082 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the two games are such close substitutes that they 6 “would be reasonably thought by the buying public to come from the same source 7 if sold under the same mark.” Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 8 457 F.3d 1062, 1076 n.10 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348 9 n.10). Both Battle Chess and Battle vs. Chess are fantasy-themed games featuring 10 duels between chess pieces. Courts have found relatedness in cases involving far 11 more diverse products. See, e.g., M2 Software, 421 F.3d at 1082 (affirming 12 finding that websites distributing audio CDs and music downloads were related 13 notwithstanding that the music genres were “very significantly different”). The 14 products at issue here are extremely related. Proximity Of The Goods 15 3. Marketing Channels Used 16 Both Interplay and TopWare distribute their products through the same types 17 of marketing channels for use on the same video game platforms. Consequently, 18 this factor also weighs toward a likelihood of consumer confusion. 19 4. Strength Of Interplay’s Mark 20 The set of factors discussed supra “constitutes the most crucial body of the 21 Sleekcraft analysis, and, in this case, . . . suggests that confusion is indeed likely.” 22 GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1207 (9th Cir. 2000). Other 23 factors also weigh toward finding consumer confusion. 24 Interplay has a relatively strong mark. Generally, “the more unique or 25 arbitrary a mark, the more protection a court will afford it.” Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n 26 v. JSL Corp., 610 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010). In determining a mark’s 27 strength, “it is the mark in its entirety that must be considered—not simply 28 individual elements of that mark.” GoTo.com, 202 F.3d at 1207. While “battle” 7 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 and “chess” are both common English words, the combination of the two is not. 2 Moreover, Battle Chess has been in use for more than twenty years, sold thousands 3 of copies, and spawned multiple sequels. Thus, this factor also suggests a 4 likelihood of confusion. 5 5. Degree Of Care Likely To Be Exercised By Consumers 6 The Court also considers the degree of care that consumers are apt to 7 exercise when selecting Battle Chess or Battle vs. Chess. “[W]hen dealing with 8 inexpensive products, customers are likely to exercise less care, thus making 9 confusion more likely.” Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 10 F.3d 1036, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, TopWare’s product sells for approximately 11 $20 to $40 and the “retro” version of Interplay’s product sells for approximately 12 $6. The differential in pricing, while not vast, could make a difference to the 13 discerning consumer. Therefore, the Court does not find that this particular factor 14 necessarily militates toward a finding of confusion. 15 The Court finds that the above-enumerated factors are the most relevant in 16 the likelihood of confusion analysis. Other factors, such as the defendant’s intent 17 in selecting the mark and evidence of actual confusion, are less helpful at this very 18 early stage of the litigation prior to discovery and before TopWare has had an 19 opportunity to respond. “[O]nly a subset of the Sleekcraft factors are needed to 20 reach a conclusion as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion.” GoTo.com, 21 202 F.3d at 1206. 22 On balance, the most relevant Sleekcraft factors suggest that consumers will 23 be confused between Battle Chess and Battle vs. Chess. Therefore, the Court finds 24 that Interplay has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its Lanham 25 Act cause of action for trademark infringement. 26 B. 27 28 Interplay Demonstrates A Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm Interplay also appears likely to suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction. Irreparable injury may be presumed in a trademark infringement claim from a 8 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 2 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009). Any negative 3 consumer reaction to Battle vs. Chess will undoubtedly cause irreparable harm to 4 the public image of Interplay’s Battle Chess line of products. The harm will be 5 especially acute because Interplay has a new version of its Battle Chess game that 6 it expects to release sometime next year and this litigation is unlikely to be 7 resolved before then. 8 C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Interplay The balance of equities tips in favor of Interplay. Any potential harm to 9 10 TopWare can be ameliorated through the bond that Interplay will post. Interplay, 11 on the other hand, is unlikely to avoid injury absent an injunction. 12 The Court is cognizant that an injunction against TopWare may have the 13 effect of delaying the release of its computer game. Nonetheless, “[t]rademark 14 protection is not lost simply because the allegedly infringing use is in connection 15 with a work of artistic expression.” Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, 16 Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 n.11 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 17 870 F.2d 40, 49 (2d. Cir. 1989)). Thus, an injunction, even one that prevents 18 TopWare from releasing an artistic endeavor, does not constitute a prior restraint in 19 violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee because the Lanham 20 Act’s prohibitions are content neutral. See id. 21 D. 22 An Injunction Is In The Public Interest Finally, the Court must consider the public interest. Here, the minimal 23 public interest in seeing Battle vs. Chess released does not outweigh the “public 24 interest in protecting trademarks generally.” Brookfield Commc’ns, 174 F.3d at 25 1066; see also State of Idaho Potato Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 26 425 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Trademarks protect the public from confusion 27 by accurately indicating the source of a product. They preserve a producer’s good 28 will ‘in order that the purchasing public may not be enticed into buying A’s 9 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1 product when it wants B’s product.’” (quoting Idaho Potato Comm’n v. M & M 2 Produce Farm & Sales, 335 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir. 2003)). 3 Consequently, the Court finds that a Preliminary Injunction is appropriate. 4 V. 5 CONCLUSION 6 In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 officers, agents, employees, affiliated companies, and those in active concert 9 or participation with them, ARE HEREBY ENJOINED FROM: Pending trial of this action Defendant TopWare Interactive, Inc., its 10 a. Advertising, manufacturing, selling, and distributing video 11 game software which contains “BATTLE CHESS” in any 12 typographical format and phrase, including “Battle vs. Chess”; 13 b. 14 websites, including but not limited to www.battlevschess.com, 15 www.topware.com, www.southpeakgames.com, and retail websites; 16 and 17 c. 18 confusingly similar designations, as a mark, business name, domain 19 name, e-mail address, meta-tag or otherwise; and, Promoting or selling such goods and services on Internet Registering or attempting to register “Battle vs. Chess” or any 20 2. 21 on all persons who have actual knowledge of this Order and no additional 22 security shall be required beyond the corporate security bond in the amount 23 of $15,000 previously posted by Interplay. 24 The above Preliminary Injunction shall become effective immediately IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 DATE: November 2, 2010 ___________________________________ DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 10 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
