This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Breach of Contract

San Diego Gulls Hockey Club LLC v. ECHL Inc., and Does 1 to 10, inclusive

Published: Oct. 15, 2021 | Result Date: Sep. 3, 2021 | Filing Date: Sep. 9, 2019 |

Case number: 8:19-cv-01716-JLS-DFM Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Josephine L. Staton

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven J. Brower
(Brower Law Group APC)

John W. Kim
(Brower Law Group APC)


Defendant

Marie L. Wrighten
(Greenspoon Marder LLP)

Lillian Claire Harwell
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

Timothy R. Windham
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)


Facts

The ECHL Inc. (formerly the East Coast Hockey League) is a mid-level professional ice hockey league, one tier below the American Hockey League. In 2015, ECHL assigned certain trademarks, including a logo, to plaintiffs, San Diego Gulls Hockey Club LLC. This assignment specifically referenced three federal trademarks and all common law marks owned by the league incorporating the word "Gulls;" any formative of that word; and any depiction of a seagull in the context of hockey or a hockey team. Besides these marks, the agreement also assigned to the Gulls a list of social media names with the word, "Gulls." After this agreement, the team was sued by a third party who alleged that the Gull logo infringed on his artwork entitled "San Diego Gulls." He had registered his artwork with the U.S. Copyright Office before ECHL's logo and the two appeared to be exactly the same. The San Diego Hockey Club spent about $750,000 defending the copyright suit and ultimately settled for $330,000. The team then sued the league to recover the costs of the lawsuit.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff made two claims. First, a breach of contract claim alleging that in the 2015 assignment agreement, the league represented that it was assigning the copyright in the logo free and clear of any claims. With that claim, the third-party lawsuit was evidence that the league breached that representation. Second, was for intentional misrepresentation--that the league knew or should have known about the third-party copyright claim and the league made misrepresentations when it stated in its assignment agreement that it had the right and authority to transfer the marks to the team and the marks were free and clear of claims.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in defendant's favor. The court reasoned that the assignment agreement only referenced trademarks and social media accounts owned by the league and did not reference any copyrights nor was the contract ambiguous as to what was being assigned.


#137902

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390