S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina, No. 13-55780 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseSoCal filed suit against Defendant Zaffina and his company, SoCal Inc., alleging violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.; the California Business and Professions Code; common law trademark infringement; and unfair competition. The court concluded that the district court did have jurisdiction over SoCal's claim under the Lanham Act; the district court properly concluded that SoCal had the capacity to bring its Lanham Act claim in federal court; SoCal had standing to sue; and SoCal's motion for summary judgment was properly served on Zaffina. On the merits, the court concluded that SoCal was entitled to summary judgment where the contested marks are protectable, SoCal owns these marks, and Zaffina's use of these marks is likely to cause confusion. The court held that unincorporated associations have the capacity to own trademarks and the district court's assumption that SoCal has the capacity to own the contested marks was correct. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment.
Court Description: Lanham Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment and issuance of a permanent injunction in an action brought under the Lanham Act by Southern California Darts Association. The panel affirmed the district court’s rulings on threshold issues. It held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction because even though Southern California Darts Association had not registered any trademarks, its claim arose under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, a provision of the Lanham Act that protects against infringement of unregistered marks and trade dress as well as registered marks. The panel held that even though Southern California Darts Association lacked the capacity to sue as a corporation because its corporate powers had been suspended by the State of California, it could bring suit in federal court as an unincorporated association for the purpose of enforcing a substantive right existing under the laws of the United States. The panel also held that Southern California Darts Association had standing to sue and that its motion for summary judgment was properly served on defendant Dino M. Zaffina. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Southern California Darts Association on its claim that Zaffina infringed its trademarks. The panel held that the contested marks were protectable as descriptive marks that had acquired secondary meaning and that Zaffina’s use of the marks was likely to cause confusion. The panel also held that Southern California Darts Association owned the marks. It held that unincorporated associations have the capacity to own trademarks. In addition, Southern California Darts Association’s use of the marks had been lawful, and it had not abandoned the marks. Finally, the panel rejected Zaffina’s arguments that Southern California Darts Association should be denied injunctive relief on the basis of unclean hands and that the district court erred by admitting a declaration into evidence.
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.