Omar Jaso v. Coca Cola Company
435 F. App'x 346
5th Cir.2011Background
- Jaso holds a Mexican registration for El Juego (1987) and alleges Coca Cola and affiliates used an unauthorized derivative Always Coca-Cola in ads.
- Jaso filed suit in 2010 alleging infringement of El Juego, contributory infringement, RICO, Lanham Act violations, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and declaratory relief.
- District court dismissed as time-barred under various statutes of limitations and denied leave to amend, referencing an exhibit suggesting the ad campaign ended in 2000.
- Jaso sought to amend to add ongoing or later acts and equitable tolling theories; the court rejected tolling and barred amendments as futile.
- On appeal, Jaso argues amendments show acts within the limitations period or tolling; Coca Cola argues the proposed amendments still fail on timeliness grounds.
- Court reverses as to copyright, contributory infringement, RICO, Lanham Act, and declaratory judgment claims, and remands for further proceedings; other state-law claims are affirmed as to dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed second amended complaint is futile for timeliness. | Jaso asserts acts within three years and tolling. | Defendants urge facial bar from pre-2000 acts and laches. | Not apparent on face; remand allowed for timeliness analysis. |
| Whether RICO claim accrual supports amendment. | RICO acts within 1994–2010; separate accrual applies. | Barred by limitations after 2000. | Remand allowed; separate accrual defeats facial bar. |
| Whether Lanham Act claim is subject to laches and timeliness. | Lanham Act claims should not be time-barred on face. | Laches may apply; period deemed untimely. | Not clear on face; remand to evaluate laches. |
| Whether equitable tolling defeats the limitations period. | Threats in 2000 and 2008 US arrival toll the period. | Threats were not continuous; no tolling. | Equitable tolling rejected for this record; remand limited to remaining claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard post-Twombly applied to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2007) (court may consider incorporated by reference materials in Rule 12(b)(6) rulings)
- Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998) (laches and delay considerations in Lanham Act context)
- Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) (contributory infringement liability posture; accrual concepts)
- Love v. Nat’l Med. Enters., 230 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2000) (separate accrual for continuing injuries under RICO)
- Rashidi v. Am. President Lines, 96 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 1996) (equitable tolling principles; extraordinary circumstances)