MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & …manatt, phelps & phillips, preliminary...
Transcript of MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & …manatt, phelps & phillips, preliminary...
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP RONALD S. KATZ (Bar No. CA 085713) email: [email protected] ROBERT D. BECKER (Bar No. CA 160648) email: [email protected] SHAWN G. HANSEN (Bar No. CA 197033) email: [email protected] 1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 812-1300 Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
Attorneys for Plaintiffs FUHU, INC. & FUHU HOLDINGS, INC.
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP CHARLES T. HOGE (Bar No. CA 110696) email: [email protected] ETHAN T. BOYER (Bar No. CA 173959) email: [email protected] 350 10th Ave., Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-8666 Facsimile: (619) 231-9593
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FUHU, INC. & FUHU HOLDINGS, INC.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TOYS “R” US, INC. & TOYS “R” US – DELAWARE, INC.,
Defendants.
Case No. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG FUHU, INC. & FUHU HOLDINGS, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Hearing Date: TBD Hearing Time: TBD Judge/Dept.: Hon. William Q. Hayes
CONFIDENTIAL
TO BE LODGED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
A. Background of Fuhu and the Development of the NABI Tablet ............................ 2
B. TRU and Fuhu Enter into Exclusivity Agreement for the NABI............................ 3
C. TRU Fails to Promote the NABI in Direct Violation of the Exclusivity Agreement ............................................................................................................... 4
D. TRU Launches its Own Kid Tablet, the TABEO, to Compete Directly with the NABI ................................................................................................................. 4
III. FUHU IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.................................... 6
A. Fuhu is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of its Claims for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets....................................................................................................... 7
1. Fuhu has Protectable Trade Secrets that It Confidentially Shared with TRU..................................................................................................... 8
2. TRU Misappropriated Fuhu’s Trade Secrets to Develop Its Own Branded Tablet and Copycat Ecosystem................................................... 10
3. Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Also Potentially Available under New Jersey’s Version of the Uniform Trade Secret Act........................... 12
B. Fuhu is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of its Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement Claims.............................................................................................. 13
1. TRU Infringes Fuhu’s NABI word mark .................................................. 13
2. TRU Infringes Fuhu’s Trade Dress........................................................... 14
C. Fuhu Will Suffer Irreparable Injury from TRU’s Sales of the TABEO ............... 18
D. The Balance of Hardships Weighs Decidedly in Fuhu’s Favor............................ 20
E. Public Interest Favors Protection of Fuhu’s Trade Secrets and Other Intellectual Property Rights .................................................................................. 21
IV. THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT NO BOND SHOULD BE REQUIRED ......... 21
V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 22
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
ii FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
CASES
Acolyte Technologies Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd.,
2011 WL 4025111 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) vacated on other grounds by Acolyte
Technologies Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd., 2011 WL 4837490 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12,
2011) ................................................................................................................................. 20, 21
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011)............................................................................................... 7, 8
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 6
AMF Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats,
599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)................................................................................. 14, 16, 17, 18
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 17
Commc'ns Workers of America v. McCormac,
417 N.J.Super. 412 9 A.3d ........................................................................................................ 8
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Bryan,
784 F. Supp. 982 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) ......................................................................................... 19
Disc Golf Ass’n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc.,
158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998)................................................................................................. 15
Eclipse Associates Limited v. Data General Corporation,
894 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1990)........................................................................................... 14, 17
Grand River Enterprise Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor
(2nd Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 60.................................................................................................... 19
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
(1974) 415 US 423, 94 S.Ct. 1113............................................................................................ 6
Grocery Outlet Inc. v. Albertson’s Inc.,
497 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2007)................................................................................................... 13
Hammock v. Hoffman–LaRoche, Inc.,
142 N.J. 356, 662 A.2d 546 (1995)........................................................................................... 8
International Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc.,
4 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 1993)....................................................................................................... 21
Lillge v. Verity,
2007 WL 2900568 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007)........................................................................... 20
Natural Organics, Inc. v. Proteins Plus, Inc.,
724 F. Supp. 50 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) ........................................................................................... 19
North Atlantic Instruments, Inc. v. Haber,
188 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1999)...................................................................................................... 19
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
iii FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
Osteotech, Inc. v. Biologic, LLC,
2008 WL 686318 (D. N.J. Mar. 7, 2008).............................................................................. 7, 8
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.,
354 F.3d 1020, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 14
Processed Plastic Co. v. Communications, Inc.,
675 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1982)................................................................................................... 20
Rent-A–Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance,
944 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1991)................................................................................................... 19
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Adco Chemical Co.,
689 F.2d 424 (3d Cir. 1982)...................................................................................................... 8
Rycoline Prod., Inc. v. Walsh,
334 N.J.Super. 62, 756 A.2d 1047 (App. Div. 2000) ........................................................... 7, 8
Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.,
739 F. 2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984).................................................................................................. 6
Syncsort Inc. v. Innovative Routines, Intern., Inc.,
2011 WL 3651331 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011)............................................................................... 7
Trump's Castle Assoc. v. Tallone,
275 N.J.Super. 159, 645 A.2d 1207 (App.Div.1994) ............................................................... 8
U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V.,
590 F3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2010).................................................................................................... 6
VFD Consulting, Inc. v 21st Services,
425 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D. Cal 2006) ....................................................................................... 7
STATUTES
N.J.S.A. 56:15-3........................................................................................................................ 1, 12
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Restatement (Third), Unfair Competition § 39 (Tentative Draft No. 4, 1993)............................... 8
Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b (1971).............................................................................. 8
www.toysrus.com.......................................................................................................................... 13
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
The status quo in this matter will drastically change on October 21, 2012.
Through an exclusivity agreement that it never intended to honor, Toys “R” Us (“TRU”)
obtained from Fuhu, Inc. (“Fuhu”) a sophisticated business plan in a niche consumer electronics
market – full-featured Android tablets for children – a market in which TRU had no expertise,
experience, or background. TRU not only failed to honor its obligations under the exclusivity
agreement, but TRU is now using Fuhu’s business plans, trade dress, and trademark to enter this
burgeoning niche market to compete directly against Fuhu. TRU’s entry into this market was
made possible because TRU shamelessly copied the trade dress and trademarks of Fuhu, and
misappropriated Fuhu’s sophisticated, complex trade secret business plan. All this occurred
despite the parties’ non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”), drafted by TRU, that 1) classifies
virtually every communication between the parties as protected confidential information and 2)
states that injunctive relief is appropriate for any breach of the NDA because of the admitted
irreparable harm caused by misuse of the trade secrets.
The strictness of the NDA is a function of the harm that is suffered when a retail product
is involved. Once the product goes on the market (and, as in this case, the first-mover advantage
of Fuhu is continually undermined), then the harm has not only occurred, but it also continues on
a daily basis. New Jersey law, which governs the trade secret aspect of this case by agreement of
the parties, highlights the issue succinctly in a statute:
Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon
application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the
trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be
continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order
to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be
derived from the misappropriation.” N.J.S.A. 56:15-3
(emphasis added).
TRU announced its purloined product – the TABEO – on September 10, 2012, to great
fanfare (see Exhibit A of Fuhu’s Complaint). The TABEO will be available in TRU stores on
October 21, 2012, and TRU is currently taking pre-orders for the all-important upcoming
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
2
holiday season, drastically changing the status quo. Therefore, Fuhu is currently experiencing
irreparable, incalculable harm and will continue to do so at least through January, 2013. For that
reason, and the reasons detailed below, Fuhu seeks injunctive relief from this Court to prevent
TRU from unfairly capitalizing on Fuhu’s trade dress, trademarks, and trade secrets. Fuhu
welcomes fair competition, but Fuhu should not be required to compete against products based on
its own intellectual property that was misappropriated under false pretenses.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Background of Fuhu and the Development of the NABI Tablet.
Based in El Segundo, California, Fuhu is a leading provider of cloud-served solutions that
enrich the user experience and enhance the way people enjoy content through a range of
consumer devices. Declaration of James Mitchell (“Mitchell Decl.”), ¶¶ 16-17. Among other
things, Fuhu has developed various software applications geared toward the children’s market,
i.e., to enable kids to discover, learn, and play by accessing dynamic content appropriate to their
age, gender, and/or interests in a child-safe online environment. Id., ¶¶ 19-20.
By early 2011, Fuhu had embarked on a business strategy that would leverage its expertise
in the child-oriented applications market by exploiting a “first-mover advantage” in a new market
segment—Android tablet computers designed for kids. Although Android tablets had been in
general circulation by this time, no manufacturer had yet released any full-featured tablets
focused on this market segment. Fuhu’s business strategy was designed to achieve volume and
dominant market share based on a multi-faceted branded ecosystem encompassing, among other
things, hardware, software, bundled content and services. Id., ¶¶ 23-24.
One manifestation of Fuhu’s business plan was the NABI, the first full-featured Android
tablet made especially for kids. The NABI tablet featured Web browsing, streaming movies and
TV shows, e-books reading books, and educational programs and games, all provided under
Fuhu’s MONARCH operating system (OS), which is specially designed to make the NABI tablet
features accessible to children and controllable by parents. Id., ¶¶ 19-53.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
3
B. TRU and Fuhu Enter into Exclusivity Agreement for the NABI.
TRU is a national supplier of toys and other children’s products. In September 2011,
Fuhu and TRU commenced negotiations regarding Fuhu’s newly-developed NABI tablet. TRU
had learned of the NABI through a mutual business partner and expressed interest in becoming
the exclusive national supplier of the NABI. Id., ¶ 69. To facilitate those discussions and protect
the confidentiality of each party’s proprietary information and trade secrets, Fuhu and TRU
entered into a very strict NDA. The NDA became effective as of the initial disclosure of any
Confidential Information, as defined in the NDA, by either party to the other, which, in this case,
was no later than September 7, 2011. Id., ¶¶ 67-68. The strictness of the NDA was essential
because both parties knew that aspects of the confidentiality would become public when the
product was marketed. Id., ¶ 67.
Fuhu and TRU continued negotiating during the ensuing weeks. Id., ¶¶ 70-85. In the
course of those negotiations, Fuhu shared with TRU its specific business plans and strategies for
the NABI. Id., ¶¶ 70-85, Ex. G. These business discussions, subject to the NDA, disclosed
Fuhu’s rollout plans, product sourcing information, and strategies for monetizing the new tablet.
Id.
In order to become the NABI’s exclusive distributor, TRU offered to provide significant
marketing and merchandising support and volume commitment. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 72-85.
Although Fuhu was not eager to restrict its retail rights for the NABI, TRU’s large scale and
strengths in Fuhu’s target demographic presented significant commercial advantage. See, e.g.,
Mitchell Decl., ¶ 80 and Ex. A. Fuhu provided a detailed web marketing plan for NABI pages on
the TRU website. Id., ¶ 84 and Ex. N. TRU provided Fuhu with materials showing its
unparalleled strength in children’s markets. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 80, Ex. A.
The parties’ negotiations culminated in the Exclusivity Agreement. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 83-
84, Ex. N. TRU agreed in the Exclusivity Agreement that it would undertake specific marketing
initiatives and merchandising actions. Id. Without those commitments, Fuhu would not have
entered into the Exclusivity Agreement. Id., ¶ 85.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 7 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
4
C. TRU Fails to Promote the NABI in Direct Violation of the Exclusivity Agreement.
TRU began accepting pre-orders for the NABI on TRU’s toysrus.com website on
November 17, 2011, and Fuhu started delivering NABI tablets in response to those pre-orders
shortly thereafter. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 86-87. As Fuhu’s business plan predicted, the NABI was an
immediate success. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 8 and Ex. H; ¶¶ 9-10, 86-90. The majority of tablets were
sold out online within a few weeks of the product launch, and TRU discontinued further pre-
orders to focus on in-store sales. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 90. TRU personnel advised Fuhu that the
TRU could have sold approximately 20,000 NABI tablets per day through the holidays and that
they expected high demand at their stores. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 90.
Despite the obvious hit on its hands, TRU, which had been extremely eager to obtain the
exclusive retail rights to the NABI, inexplicably did not live up to its marketing and
merchandising commitments. To the contrary, instead of promoting the NABI per its agreement
with Fuhu, TRU did virtually no promotion. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 8-10, 89-90. TRU ordered the
NABI in quantities that were commercially unreasonable given the reported demand. Id. In the
end, TRU’s total orders for the 2011 holiday season were hardly more than what TRU said it
could sell on its website in a single day. Id., ¶ 10.
Fuhu understandably grew frustrated with TRU’s lackluster support of its product. After
further conversations and overtures for additional promotional and sales support proved futile,
Fuhu terminated the exclusivity of TRU’s distribution rights in January, 2012. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶
90-93, Exs. E & F. The reason for TRU’s inexplicable behavior in failing to promote the NABI
became clear several months later. Id., ¶¶ 11, 94.
D. TRU Launches its Own Kid Tablet, the TABEO, to Compete Directly with the NABI.
On September 10, 2012, TRU publicly announced the release of its own TRU-branded,
“proprietary” tablet for children, the TABEO, which is reported to be TRU’s first house brand
electronics product. Id., ¶¶ 7, 94-119; see also Exhibit A to Complaint.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 8 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
5
It is clear that TRU made the difficult move from toy retailer into house brand electronics
by misappropriating the trade secrets and proprietary information that Fuhu shared with TRU.
Quite simply, the TABEO copies many of the features of the NABI that were disclosed in Fuhu’s
business plan and during the parties’ negotiations. Id., ¶¶ 7, 94-119.
Among other things, the TABEO recreates Fuhu’s confidential business strategies
regarding creation of a unique, branded experience with a similar tag line, feature set, online
digital distribution of apps, games, and other content, parental controls, accessories, and use of
generic hardware to reduce the risks of entering the tablet business. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 7, 94-119.
The TABEO’s inclusion of these features and strategies is no coincidence. TRU had access to the
Fuhu business plans and strategies that led to the NABI’s success. Id., ¶¶ 7, 94-119.
Moreover, the TABEO improperly emulates the look and feel, i.e., the trade dress, of the
NABI. When the TABEO product is compared next to Fuhu’s NABI products, as can be done
easily in online retail venues, the similarities between the shapes of the respective bumpers are
further emphasized. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 108. Below is a true and correct representation of TRU’s
TABEO product bearing the Infringing Trade Dress (on the left) next to the corresponding NABI
product (on the right). Mitchell Decl., ¶ 108.
Both the original NABI tablet and NABI 2 (released in summer 2012) have consistently
and continuously featured distinctive, non-functional trade dress, as illustrated in the image of the
NABI on the right above. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 54-66, 108. Specifically, all NABI tablets feature a
removable “bumper” that fits snugly around the outer edge of the tablet. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 57.
The NABI bumpers come in a range of colors, but all feature concave sides that give rise to
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 9 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
6
exaggerated, flared corners, giving the NABI tablet an original, unique, soft, and friendly look,
reminiscent of the four wings of a butterfly. Id. Fuhu not only incorporates its iconic Butterfly
Design into the NABI bumpers themselves, but the company consistently has highlighted this
trade dress in its distinctive product packaging and advertising. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 58-61.
Specifically, the box for the NABI tablet, which is delivered wearing the NABI bumper, features
the outline of the NABI bumper including the Butterfly Trade Dress, in actual or nearly actual
size on the box top. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 59.
TRU also is using Fuhu’s NABI trademark to market, promote, and sell other products on
TRU’s web site. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 111-119. Specifically, when the term “nabi” is entered in the
search box on the TRU web site, instead of returning no results or showing the NABI, TRU
improperly uses NABI to return results for its own TABEO and other competing tablets, Kurio
and Meep, as well as TRU’s accessories for TABEO. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 116.
III. FUHU IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
The main purpose of injunctive relief it to preserve the status quo. The sole purpose of a
temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending hearing on the moving party’s
application for a preliminary injunction. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters
& Auto Truck Drivers (1974) 415 US 423, 439, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 1124. A preliminary injunction, of
course, is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the status
quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v.
Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F. 2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984), see also U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC
Bank N.V., 590 F3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). The status quo in this case will change
drastically on October 21, 2012, when TRU has announced that the TABEO will be available.
Mitchell Decl., ¶ 7.
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show “[1] that he is likely to succeed on
the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3]
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest”; or,
in lieu of factors [1] and [3], there are “serious questions” going to the merits and the “balance of
hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff.” American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 10 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
7
Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (“likelihood of success” test); Alliance for the
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (“serious questions” test).
In manufacturing and retailing the TABEO, TRU has misappropriated Fuhu’s trade
secrets and infringed Fuhu’s trademarks and trade dress. As shown below, TABEO’s
specifications, features, and marketing derive directly from the proprietary business plan
information Fuhu shared with TRU under the safeguards of the parties’ NDA. TRU disregarded
the NDA and misappropriated Fuhu’s trade secret information for its own commercial benefit.
Moreover, TRU is compounding its misconduct by offering for sale a kids tablet that emulates
distinctive trade features of the NABI. Under principles of equity, TRU cannot be permitted to
market and distribute its TABEO in this manner. Immediate injunctive relief is necessary and
warranted.
A. Fuhu is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of its Claims for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
In Paragraph 8 of the NDA, Fuhu and TRU expressly agreed that the NDA would be
governed and construed by the substantive law of New Jersey. Mitchell Decl., Ex. M (NDA § 8).
Accordingly, that state’s substantive law applies to Fuhu’s misappropriation of trade secrets
claim. See e.g., VFD Consulting, Inc. v 21st Services, 425 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D. Cal 2006)
(contractual choice of law provision governs trade secrets dispute arising out of agreement)
Under New Jersey law, the basic elements of a claim of trade secret misappropriation are:
(1) a trade secret exists; (2) it was communicated in confidence; (3) the secret information was
disclosed in breach of that confidence; (4) the secret information was acquired by the competitor
with knowledge of the breach of confidence; (5) the secret information was used by the
competitor to the detriment of the plaintiff; and (6) the plaintiff took precautions to maintain the
secrecy of the trade secret.” See, e.g., Syncsort Inc. v. Innovative Routines, Intern., Inc., 2011
WL 3651331, *12 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011); accord Osteotech, Inc. v. Biologic, LLC, 2008 WL
686318, *3 (D. N.J. Mar. 7, 2008) citing Rycoline Prod., Inc. v. Walsh, 334 N.J.Super. 62, 71,
756 A.2d 1047, 1052 (App. Div. 2000) (stating elements for New Jersey trade secrets claim).
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 11 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
8
Here, TRU purposefully misappropriated Fuhu’s confidential business plan related to the
NABI, which were disclosed in strict confidence, to take a short cut in its own efforts to develop
and promote its competing TABEO product. At the very least, Fuhu has raised “serious
questions” about the merits of these claims and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of
an injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135.
1. Fuhu has Protectable Trade Secrets that It Confidentially Shared with TRU.
A trade secret under New Jersey law is “‘any formula, pattern, device or compilation of
information which is used in one's business and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an
advantage over competitors who do not know or use it,’ Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b
(1971), or ‘any information that can be used in the operation of a business or other enterprise and
that is sufficiently valuable and secret to afford a potential economic advantage over others.’
Restatement (Third), Unfair Competition § 39 (Tentative Draft No. 4, 1993).” Commc'ns
Workers of America v. McCormac, 417 N.J.Super. 412, 438 9 A.3d 1106, 1123 (N.J.Super.
2008); accord Hammock v. Hoffman–LaRoche, Inc., 142 N.J. 356, 384, 662 A.2d 546 (1995).
Courts applying New Jersey law have held that business plans and similar information
regarding a company’s operations can qualify as trade secrets. See, e.g., Osteotech, 2008 WL
686318, *3 (D. N.J. Mar. 7, 2008) (“Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants used Plaintiff's business
plans of using certain trademarks to file trademark applications that mirrored Plaintiff's intended
use. [Citation.] Indeed, these allegations, as incorporated into Plaintiff's misappropriation claim,
set forth the fifth element of its claim under Rycoline.”); Trump's Castle Assoc. v. Tallone, 275
N.J.Super. 159, 162, 645 A.2d 1207 (App.Div.1994) (stating that trade secrets can consist of
“aspects of business operations such as pricing and marketing techniques”); see also Rohm &
Haas Co. v. Adco Chemical Co., 689 F.2d 424, 433 (3d Cir. 1982) (explaining that even where
each and every element of a company’s business process is known to the industry, the specific
combination of those elements may be a trade secret if it produces a product superior to that of
competitors).
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 12 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
9
Here, Fuhu’s business plans regarding the sourcing, marketing, and specific monetization
of its NABI tablet qualify as trade secrets. First, the parties agreed in the NDA that business plans
constituted proprietary and trade secret information:
Each party acknowledges that all of the information provided to the other party (the “Receiving Party”) is confidential, proprietary and a trade secret of the party disclosing such information (the “Disclosing Party”). Such information shall include, without limitation, the following: the existence of the Proposed Transaction, any proposed terms and conditions thereof, and any communications sent to each other in connection therewith, any business secrets or methods, processes, formulas, designs, inventories, techniques, marketing plans, strategies, forecasts, new products, blueprints, specifications, maps, computer software programs, promotional ideas, unpublished financial statements, budget projections, licenses, prices, costs, policies, manuals or instructions, reports, lists of names and/or addresses of customers, prospective customers, suppliers or prospective suppliers, other customer or supplier or prospective customer or supplier information or requirements, personnel information, the terms of any of the Disclosing Party’s contracts, leases or other arrangements or leasing information or any other confidential or proprietary information, records, observations or data of the Disclosing Party (whether or not patented, copyrighted or otherwise protected under applicable law) ....
Mitchell Decl., Ex. M (NDA § 1) (emphasis added).
The NDA reflects the parties’ understanding that they were divulging their most
proprietary and valuable information in order to pursue the Exclusivity Agreement.
Second, Fuhu’s business plans and related strategies for the NABI were developed
through enormous effort and expense, and afforded Fuhu a significant economic advantage over
potential competitors seeking to enter the burgeoning kids tablet niche market. Mitchell Decl.,
¶¶ 67-68. TRU recognized the inherent value of Fuhu’s confidential business strategies
surrounding the NABI and the NABI ecosystem, which is why it was so eager to enter into the
Exclusivity Agreement (which it had no intention to honor). Id., 69-84.
Fuhu’s trade secrets, divulged to TRU pursuant to the NDA, individually and in
combination, comprised specific, concrete strategies that contemplated a unique combination of
numerous components and concepts that together move from the simple business idea of selling a
kids version of a tablet to a entire business strategy for creating a defensible, profitable, scalable,
and extensible ecosystem for such a product. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 24-25. As set forth in detail in
the accompanying Declaration of James Mitchell, Fuhu disclosed detailed information to TRU
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 13 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
10
that demonstrated the unique way Fuhu intended to monetize the NABI ecosystem. Mitchell
Decl., ¶¶ 69-92, Ex. G (summary of trade secrets).
The information that Fuhu disclosed to TRU under the NDA included, without limitation,
Fuhu’s plan to create an entire ecosystem built around NABI, including, profile-based parental
controls in NABI (kid) mode, a parental mode that allows parents to unlock the device and use
the full functionality of the tablet, an instant-on experience achieved through Fuhu’s innovations
in the device operating system, pre-loading content to provide a good user experience “out of the
box”, detailed strategy for accessories, and online components for distribution of digital content
such as apps, games, music, and videos, and related strategies for securing content for the same.
Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 69-92, Ex. G. Fuhu explained how these features of its strategy would help
reduce returns, a key competitive advantage in Fuhu’s NABI strategy. Id. Fuhu also explained
how its strategy reduces the risks of entering the tablet business, by starting with a high-quality,
general purpose tablet and transforming it into a unique-branded experience tailored to the target
demographic of kids and parents, thus realizing higher quality, lower pricing, and fewer returns.
Id. Fuhu also explained how profit margins could be improved by leveraging the “toyetic” nature
of the NABI product to drive sales of accessories and content. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 24. Fuhu
emphasized that large volume was an important requirement for achieving low prices and for
securing sufficient manufacturing capacity and keeping prices low. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 79.
2. TRU Misappropriated Fuhu’s Trade Secrets to Develop Its Own Branded Tablet and Copycat Ecosystem
Fuhu can satisfy the remaining elements of its misappropriation of trade secrets claim.
Fuhu communicated its NABI business plan and other trade secrets in confidence to TRU,
pursuant to the terms of the NDA. The NDA, which was entered into for the purpose of
facilitating TRU to become the exclusive distributor/seller of Fuhu’s NABI, specifically states
that:
. . . the Receiving Party shall use such Confidential Information [including Fuhu’s trade secrets] only for such purpose as the Disclosing Party may agree in advance.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 14 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
11
Id., Ex. M (NDA § 2(b)) (emphasis added). Fuhu never agreed to TRU using Fuhu’s business
plan for the NABI to create a competing product, the TABEO.
TRU breached that confidence by impermissibly using that trade secret to develop and
promote a competing TABEO product instead of fulfilling its obligations to exclusively
distribute/sell Fuhu’s NABI product. The features, accessories, and marketing strategies for the
TABEO are taken directly from Fuhu’s business plans for the NABI.
For example, TRU’s advertising and promotional materials for the TABEO are based
directly on the business plan for the NABI Fuhu shared with TRU on a basis of strict
confidentiality. The just-released public information regarding the TABEO product reveals that,
as outlined in the trade secret business plan for the NABI, the TABEO:
• uses a product tag line;
• has a variety of product features/applications – games, educational materials,
entertainment materials, including shipping the tablet with several pre-installed
applications;
• has a dedicated “app” store;
• incorporates parental controls;
• offers extensive accessory lines;
• takes advantage of cost-effective generic hardware, including by making high-
volume orders with hardware manufactures;
• supports the kids tablet with a website;
• gives the kids tablet flared corners.
In combination, this business plan is a sophisticated and complex undertaking that requires
substantial trial time, experience, expertise and know-how. See Declaration of Professor William
Bleuel, filed herewith. As Professor Bleuel, with over forty years of business and academic
experience states in paragraph 40 of his Declaration:
“Indeed, it is the nature of business plans that they are not generally known. They are customized to give a business a competitive advantage.”
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 15 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
12
3. Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Also Potentially Available under New Jersey’s Version of the Uniform Trade Secret Act.
On January 9, 2012, New Jersey adopted its own version of the Uniform Trade Secrets
Act, which became effective immediately. As relevant here, New Jersey’s UTSA specifically
recognizes that courts have power to fashion a remedy that is tailored to remove the commercial
advantage gained through misappropriation – even if after misappropriation the trade secret loses
its trade secret status. “Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the
trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable
period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from
the misappropriation.” N.J.S.A. 56:15-3.
Therefore, because Fuhu’s business plan was confidentially disclosed to TRU, even if
there is a finding that the business plan subsequently lost its trade secret status, TRU can and
should still be enjoined from selling TABEO to compensate for the commercial advantage it
unfairly obtained by misusing Fuhu’s trade secrets. In this case, a preliminary injunction of a
minimum three month duration is appropriate to compensate for the research, testing, and trial
and error that TRU was able to avoid.1
Even after NABI went on sale, however, there were numerous trade secrets that would
remain as such. These include, for example, and without limitation, critical and highly
confidential information regarding Fuhu’s relationships with numerous suppliers and partners,
including, but not limited to, hardware component sources, accessory sources and licensees,
manufacturing service providers, developers of games and apps, merchandising rights licensors,
packaging and marketing resources, alternative sources for products and supplies, and various
aspects of the unique software imbedded in the product. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 67, Bleuel Decl., ¶ 43.
1 New Jersey adopted the U.T.S.A. prospectively in January 2012.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 16 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
13
B. Fuhu is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of its Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement Claims
1. TRU Infringes Fuhu’s NABI word mark
Fuhu’s trademark infringement claims require Fuhu to establish that (1) it has a valid,
protectable trademark in its NABI trademark, and (2) TRU used, without authorization, a mark
similar to the NABI trademark that is likely to cause consumer confusion, deception, or mistake.
Grocery Outlet Inc. v. Albertson’s Inc., 497 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2007).
a. Fuhu has a valid, protectable trademark in its NABI word mark
Consistent with Fuhu’s published trademark application for the NABI word mark
(application no. 85/426283), Fuhu’s use in commerce of the NABI mark dates back at least to
September 1, 2011. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 56, Ex. J. Since then, Fuhu has continuously used the mark
in association with its child-oriented tablet and with other items in the tablet ecosystem, including
accessories such as bumpers. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 56, Ex. J; see also ¶¶ 57-65. Fuhu has priority
over any use by TRU to refer to tablets or tablet accessories. Given the distinctive nature of
“nabi” as applied to tablet computers and accessories for tablet computers, it is highly likely that
Fuhu has a valid and protectable trademark in the NABI word mark.
b. TRU Uses the NABI Mark Without Authorization, Which is Likely to Cause Confusion in the Market.
TRU is using the NABI word mark, unmodified, and without Fuhu authorization, in a way
that demonstrates that TRU’s intent is to trade off NABI’s good name and reputation. TRU does
so by returning search results for its own TABEO products and accessories when users of
www.toysrus.com search for the word “nabi”. TRU reiterates back to the user that it is returning
results for the search term “nabi,” and then presents no actual NABI products, but only those
from TRU and third parties. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 116.
Likelihood of confusion is legally certain here. If the goods produced, or the services
offered, by the infringer compete for sales with those of the trademark owner, infringement will
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 17 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
14
be found if the marks are sufficiently similar such that confusion can be expected. AMF
Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348 (9th Cir. 1979).
The factors for likelihood of confusion include: (1) the strength of the mark, (2) the
similarity of the marks, (3) the relatedness of the goods and services, (4) evidence of actual
confusion, (5) intent of the infringer, (6) the marketing channels used to sell the respective goods
and services, (7) the sophistication of the customers, and (8) the likelihood of expansion of the
product lines. AMF, 599 F.2d at 348-49; Eclipse Associates Limited v. Data General
Corporation, 894 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1990). Each of these factors is not required to be
examined by the Court. Rather, the Court should consider those factors that are relevant to this
case and relevant at this stage of the proceedings. Eclipse, 894 F.2d at 1117-19.
In this case, TRU is offering its TABEO tablet and associated accessories. These are
direct competitors for Fuhu’s NABI tablet and NABI accessories. Therefore, the Court only need
compare Fuhu’s NABI word mark with the mark used by TRU.
Contrasting how TRU deals with searches for Fuhu’s NABI mark with how it deals with
other searches provides compelling evidence that TRU is deliberately using the NABI word mark
to confuse customers and increase its own sales. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 114. This strongly suggests
that TRU has intentionally associated Fuhu’s NABI word mark with TRU’s own line of directly
competitive products. TRU’s intentional use of a mark identical to Fuhu’s word mark is
probative of a likelihood of confusion. AMF, 599 F.2d at 354 (“When the alleged infringer
knowingly adopts a mark similar to another’s, reviewing courts presume that the defendant can
accomplish his purpose: that is, that the public will be deceived.”); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v.
Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020, 1029, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A
defendant’s intent to confuse constitutes probative evidence of likely confusion.”).
2. TRU Infringes Fuhu’s Trade Dress
To succeed in a trade dress infringement claim, Fuhu must show “(1) that it owns a
protectable trade dress that is not functional, (2) that the trade dress is either inherently distinctive
or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, and (3) that [TRU’s] trade dress
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 18 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
15
creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, affiliation, connection to or sponsorship of the
product.” Disc Golf Ass’n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1998).
a. Fuhu’s Iconic Butterfly Trade Dress
Fuhu is the owner of valid trademark rights in its iconic Butterfly design. First, beginning
at least as early as August, 2011, and continuing to the present time, Fuhu owns, has used and
continues to use one or more of the following trademarks in connection with its NABI products
and ecosystem, marketed throughout California and the United States. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 56, Ex. J.
Mark Federal Application No. Image
NABI 85/426283 ---
NABI. YOUR TABLET.
YOUR WORLD.
85/728299 (ITU filed 09/13/2012) ---
NABI & Butterfly Design 85/564634
Design Only
(Compressed Butterfly)
Common Law
Design Only (Extended
Butterfly)
Common Law
Fuhu has thoroughly integrated the iconic Butterfly design into and on its products,
packaging, advertising, and media; has seamlessly connected its Butterfly design trademarks with
its Butterfly trade dress; and has garnered widespread publicity. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 57-65. The
Butterfly trade dress, which is designed to evoke a butterfly, is non-functional. Id., ¶¶ 60, 66.
By virtue of Fuhu’s consistent and exclusive use of the non-functional iconic Butterfly
shape-not only in connection with the NABI bumpers and as worn by the NABI tablets, but also
as echoed throughout the NABI products packaging, brochures, and animated television
advertising segments – the butterfly design trademarks and the Butterfly trade dress have acquired
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 19 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
16
secondary meaning: they have become associated in the minds of the consuming public with
Fuhu and its high-quality tablets and related products, and they serve to identify these products as
emanating solely from Fuhu. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 62-66.
Thus, Fuhu has a valid, protectable, non-functional iconic Butterfly trade dress.
b. TRU’s Trade Dress is Confusingly Similar to Fuhu’s Iconic Butterfly
Again, because TRU’s offered goods compete directly with Fuhu’s, infringement will be
found if the marks are sufficiently similar such that confusion can be expected. AMF, 599 F.2d at
348.
The TABEO and NABI are sufficiently similar. TRU incorporated Fuhu’s iconic
Butterfly shape and trade dress into the trade dress of its own bumper in order to promote its
competing TABEO tablet. Specifically, TRU’s TABEO tablet wears a bumper displaying flared
corners (the “Infringing Trade Dress”) that is identical or nearly identical to Fuhu’s Butterfly
trademarks and trade dress. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 108. Below is a true and correct representation of
TRU’s TABEO product bearing the Infringing Trade Dress (on the left) next to the corresponding
NABI product (on the right). Mitchell Decl., ¶ 108.
The full list of AMF factors include: (1) the strength of the mark, (2) the similarity of the
marks, (3) the relatedness of the goods and services, (4) evidence of actual confusion, (5) intent of
the infringer, (6) the marketing channels used to sell the respective goods and services, (7) the
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 20 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
17
sophistication of the customers, and (8) the likelihood of expansion of the product lines. AMF,
599 F.2d at 348-49; Eclipse, 894 F.2d at 1117.
(1) Fuhu’s Trade Dress is Fanciful and Strong
Because the Butterfly design is fanciful or arbitrary, it is inherently distinctive. This
distinction has been strengthened by its commercial strength, as reflected in the sales and
publicity described in the Mitchell declaration. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 62-66.
(2) The Marks Are Virtually Identical
As apparent from the side-by-side images, the TABEO’s trade dress is virtually identical
to the iconic Butterfly design. Indeed, TRU even chose a shade of green for its default TABEO
bumper that was identical to the shade of the best selling NABI design during the period TRU
sold the NABI. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 108.
(3) TRU Intended To Trade On Fuhu’s Goodwill
The previously described use of Fuhu’s NABI word mark buttresses the conclusion that
TRU intended to trade on Fuhu’s goodwill when it selected the trade dress for the TABEO. From
TRU’s TABEO marketing material, it is apparent that TRU was attempting to make a look-alike
product to leverage the positive reviews and success of Fuhu’s NABI. Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 94-108.
(4) The Goods Are Related
As previously mentioned, TRU’s TABEO products compete directly with Fuhu’s NABI
products. Where the marks are virtually identical and they are used with identical products or
services, a likelihood of confusion would follow as a matter of course. Brookfield Commc’ns,
Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 106 (9th Cir. 1999).
(5) Actual Confusion
Although, Fuhu is unaware of any instances of actual confusion to date, it is likely that
confusion has resulted and will continue to result from TRU’s use of the Butterfly trade dress. In
any event, Fuhu need only show there is a likelihood of confusion, which Fuhu has done.
Eclipse, 894 F.2d at 1118. An absence of actual confusion is not dispositive and generally
unnoteworthy, because evidence of actual confusion is difficult to obtain. See Brookfield, 174
F.3d at 1050.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 21 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
18
(6) The Customers Are Moderately Sophisticated
TRU’s customers are harried parents and their children, who will focus on look and feel of
the products, especially children who cannot yet read. NABI tablets were the first full-featured
Android tablets made especially for children. Therefore, it is reasonable to surmise that parents
and children in this market would note the overwhelming similar in visual appearance between
the TABEO and NABI products.
(7) Distribution Channels
Convergent marketing channels increase the likelihood of confusion. AMF, 599 F.2d at
353. TRU distributes its TABEO online and through its retail stores. The NABI is distributed
online and through retail stores. In fact, during the 2011 holiday season, the NABI was
exclusively distributed through TRU’s website and retail stores, the exact same channels as the
TABEO. The distribution channels are similar.
(8) The likelihood of expansion of the product lines
Both TABEO and NABI already have directly competitive and offerings in the form of
tablets and accessories. To the extent the product lines expand, they are likely to remain directly
competitive.
C. Fuhu Will Suffer Irreparable Injury from TRU’s Sales of the TABEO
TRU’s misconduct and its imminent planned sales of the TABEO product in the
upcoming 2012 holiday shopping season is irreparably injuring Fuhu’s first-mover status in the
market for kids tablets. Bleuel Decl., ¶¶ 11a, 27-28. First, under the parties’ NDA, TRU has
already explicitly acknowledged that misappropriation of Fuhu’s trade secrets, such as the NABI
business plan, and other misuses of Fuhu’s confidential or proprietary information would cause
Fuhu immediate and irreparable harm.
If the Receiving Party breaches this Agreement or discloses any Confidential Information other than as permitted by this Agreement, the Disclosing Party shall suffer immediate and irreparable harm for which money damages shall not constitute a full and adequate remedy. The parties acknowledge that equitable relief, including injunction and specific performance, without the necessity for posting any bond, in the event of any actual or threatened breach of the provisions of this Agreement,
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 22 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
19
in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity, is thereby warranted.
Mitchell Decl., Ex. M (NDA § 8) (emphasis added). See North Atlantic Instruments, Inc. v.
Haber, 188 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding irreparable harm on the basis of both a contractual
provision and the impossibility of measuring the harm from a loss of trade secrets in monetary
terms).
Additionally, if TRU is allowed in the upcoming 2012 holiday shopping season to use the
fruits of its misconduct to further deprive Fuhu of its first-mover status in the niche market for
kids tablets, then Fuhu will not be able to recover that status after trial and money damages would
be both inadequate and difficult to calculate. Bleuel Decl., ¶¶ 11a, 27-28. See Grand River
Enterprise Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor (2nd Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 60, 67 (loss of current or future
market share may constitute irreparable harm); see also Computer Associates International, Inc.
v. Bryan, 784 F. Supp. 982, 986 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (“[T]he potential loss of an industry leader's
present market and loss of the advantage of being the pioneer in the field and the market leader,
may constitute irreparable harm.”). Natural Organics, Inc. v. Proteins Plus, Inc., 724 F. Supp.
50, 53 (E.D.N.Y. 1989); “if injunctive relief is denied [plaintiff] will lose its present market for
Spiru–Tein [protein supplement]. Competitors are beginning to market protein supplements and
[plaintiff] will lose the advantage in being an early starter (or indeed, the first) in the market;”
granting preliminary injunctive relief).
A first mover in a market reaps many advantages. Among other things, the first move can
establish a brand name so that the brand may become synonymous with the market. Similarly,
the first mover can set the standard of the attributes the product class should possess. Bleuel
Decl. ¶ 13. Many, if not all, of those advantages would be irreparably and incalculably
undermined if TRU were permitted this holiday season to establish a beachhead in the market
kids tablets that is built upon the TRU’s copying of the NABI. Bleuel Decl., ¶¶ 27-28.
Intimately related to the harms to Fuhu’s first-mover status are the harms to goodwill. See
Rent-A–Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance, 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991)
(damage to the goodwill of a business is often difficult to calculate, thus supporting a finding of
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 23 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
20
irreparable injury). Fuhu CEO Jim Mitchell and Professor William Bleuel also address the
irreparable harm related to goodwill. See, e.g., Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 24-25, Bleuel Decl., ¶ 27
(“[Fuhu’s overall good will in the market is considerably diminished relative to where it
otherwise would have been”). See also Acolyte Technologies Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd.,
2011 WL 4025111 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) vacated on other grounds by Acolyte Technologies
Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd., 2011 WL 4837490 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011) (granting TRO
based on CEO’s declaration of irreparable harm arising from loss of goodwill and market share
due to defendant’s threatened sale of competing infringing product); Lillge v. Verity, 2007 WL
2900568, *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007) (“the risk of losing established customers to defendants'
new business due to defendants' improper use of plaintiff's proprietary information would
obviously create lasting, irreparable harm.”).
D. The Balance of Hardships Weighs Decidedly in Fuhu’s Favor.
In this case, Fuhu will suffer the greater injury if injunctive relief is not granted. Fuhu is
the party whose trade secrets and other confidential information was stolen by TRU, and whose
other intellectual property rights are being infringed by TRU. TRU engaged in such misconduct
in order to develop and promote its competing TABEO product, all while misleading Fuhu into
thinking that it had developed an exclusive relationship with the largest toy retailer in the United
States to promote Fuhu’s NABI product. See Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 69-90. Courts have consistently
reiterated that when weighing the relative hardships in granting preliminary injunctive relief,
wrongdoers should not be heard to complain. See, e.g., Processed Plastic Co. v.
Communications, Inc., 675 F.2d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 1982) (after a company intentionally copied a
toy car, that company did not suffer hardship because, inter alia, it “cannot now complain that
having to mend its ways would be too expensive.”); see also Acolyte Technologies Corp. v. Jeja
Intern. Corp. Ltd., 2011 WL 4025111 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) vacated on other grounds by
Acolyte Technologies Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd., 2011 WL 4837490 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12,
2011) (finding hardships in plaintiff’s favor, explaining that “[d]efendants have no right to build a
business by infringing Plaintiff's patents”). Therefore, TRU also should not be heard to complain
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 24 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
21
about its inability to sell and promote the TABEO – especially because of its relative size and
strength as compared to Fuhu.
Moreover, the impact on Fuhu if an injunction does not issue will be significant. Fuhu is
a small start-up company with one product. By contrast, TRU is a national company, with the
TABEO being just one of thousands of its products.
According to TRU’s investor relations web page, TRU sells merchandise in 876 Toys “R”
Us and Babies “R” Us stores in the United States and Puerto Rico, and in more than 635
international stores and over 145 licensed stores in 35 countries and jurisdictions, as well as in the
FAO Schwarz flagship store on Fifth Avenue in New York City, as well as a prominent retail web
site. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 14. In contrast, Fuhu has no stores, and the NABI device and ecosystem is
currently Fuhu’s primary line of business and source of revenue. Mitchell Decl., ¶ 23. See
International Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 827 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Given
that Metrosound is much smaller and younger than Jensen and given that Jensen failed to
vigorously protect its trademark claim, the court found the balance did not tip in Jensen's favor.”).
E. Public Interest Favors Protection of Fuhu’s Trade Secrets and Other Intellectual Property Rights
Public interest weighs in favor of granting Fuhu preliminary injunctive relief. The public
has a significant interest in protecting trade secrets and other intellectual property rights, as well
as in promoting fair competition. None of those interests will be furthered if TRU is allowed to
continue its unlawful scheme by completing consumer sales and taking pre-orders for the TABEO
product, and otherwise infringing on the intellectual property rights of Fuhu related to the NABI.
See Acolyte Technologies Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd., 2011 WL 4025111 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12,
2011) vacated on other grounds by Acolyte Technologies Corp. v. Jeja Intern. Corp. Ltd., 2011
WL 4837490 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Public policy favors enforcing Plaintiff's rights secured
by its patents, and the public has an interest in fair competition.”).
IV. THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT NO BOND SHOULD BE REQUIRED
No bond should be required because the parties agreed that if there was a violation of the
NDA, no bond would be required in order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 25 of 26
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FUHU’S MPA ISO TRO & OSC RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2308 WQH-WVG
22
If the Receiving Party breaches this Agreement or discloses any Confidential Information other than as permitted by this Agreement, the Disclosing Party shall suffer immediate and irreparable harm for which money damages shall not constitute a full and adequate remedy. The parties acknowledge that equitable relief, including injunction and specific performance, without the necessity for posting any bond, in the event of any actual or threatened breach of the provisions of this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity, is thereby warranted.
Mitchell Decl., Ex. M (NDA § 8) (emphasis added).
V. CONCLUSION
October 21, 2012 will bring a drastic change to the status quo. TRU’s wrongdoing will
bear fruit that day as a result of years of Fuhu’s hard work and innovation. Fuhu, therefore,
respectfully requests from this Court the injunctive relief set out in Fuhu’s accompanying
proposed order. Such relief will maintain the status quo and prevent TRU from wrongfully
benefiting from Fuhu’s innovative intellectual property.
Dated: September 25, 2012
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
By: _ /s/ Ronald S. Katz Ronald S. Katz Attorneys for Plaintiff FUHU, INC.
304822346.2
Case 3:12-cv-02308-WQH-WVG Document 102 Filed 10/19/12 Page 26 of 26