ETDO Productions, LLC v. Cruz, 2:19-cv-13184

ETDO Productions, LLC sued Disco Amigos Social Aid and Pleasure Club and individual defendants seeking a declaration that ETDO owns the “Disco Amigos” trademark and logo and an injunction against the Club’s use.
ETDO alleges members Francois Camenzuli coined the name (2011) and Jerry Lenaz designed the logo (2012), then transferred IP to ETDO in 2015.
Camenzuli and Lenaz allegedly granted an implied non‑exclusive license to the Club when the Club formed in 2012; ETDO later revoked that license and claims the Club continued unauthorized use.
The Club counterclaimed against ETDO and asserted fiduciary and duty‑of‑care claims against Camenzuli and Lenaz as board members; the Club disputes the existence of any prior ownership claim or assignment.
ETDO and the third‑party defendants moved for summary judgment asserting ETDO’s ownership and likelihood of confusion; the Club opposed, arguing the alleged prior uses were insubstantial and there are factual disputes.
The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact about trademark ownership and continuous/public use that precluded resolution as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who owns the "Disco Amigos" mark (priority of use)?	ETDO (via Lenaz/Camenzuli) were first users at events/social media/merch and therefore have priority.	Club says Lenaz/Camenzuli’s limited creative uses are insufficient to establish ownership.	Court: Genuine dispute exists; ownership unresolved — summary judgment denied.
Whether the alleged prior use was continuous/public enough to establish common‑law rights	ETDO points to single early uses, invoices, and publicity to show adoption and public association.	Club argues the use was not continuous or sufficiently public to put the Club on notice.	Court: Factual dispute over continuity/public association precludes summary judgment.
Existence and effect of an implied license and its revocation	ETDO/Lenaz/Camenzuli say they granted and later revoked an implied non‑exclusive license, so ETDO owns and can enjoin use.	Club members say they never knew of any license/assignment; public associated mark with the Club’s services.	Court: Credibility and conflicting evidence about the license and public perception create material issues; summary judgment denied.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and proof standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine‑issue standard for summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must produce competent evidence once movant meets burden)
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. 418 (priority determined by first use in commerce)
Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 508 F.2d 1260 (adoption and public use required to establish common‑law trademark rights)
Lyons v. American College of Veterinary Sports, 859 F.3d 1023 (framework for ownership disputes among organization members; public association and intent)
Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage, 608 F.3d 225 (Lanham Act elements: ownership and likelihood of confusion)