Ron Glick v. Angela Townsend
677 F. App'x 323
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ron D. Glick filed suit pro se asserting federal and state claims arising from his creation and use of a trademark.
- The district court dismissed Glick’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim and denied several motions by Glick (change of venue, contempt, and injunction against state-court proceedings).
- Glick appealed the dismissal and the denials; the Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviewed the dismissal de novo.
- The district court concluded Glick failed to allege sufficient facts showing trademark ownership by prior use in commerce under the Lanham Act.
- The district court also denied Glick’s motions for change of venue, contempt against defendant Townsend, and an injunction staying state-court litigation; Glick challenged those denials on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court on all grounds, rejecting arguments of judicial bias and new issues raised first on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of trademark ownership under the Lanham Act | Glick contended he owned the trademark based on his creation/use | Townsend (and record) argued Glick failed to show first use in commerce or sufficient facts | Affirmed dismissal — Glick did not allege facts showing he was first to use the mark in commerce (Lanham Act ownership requires prior use) |
| Motion to change venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Glick sought transfer for convenience | Defendant opposed; record lacked reasons supporting transfer | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; transfer not warranted |
| Motion for contempt against Townsend | Glick asserted Townsend violated a court order | Townsend denied any violation; Glick failed to prove breach | Denied — Glick did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden to show violation of a specific, definite court order |
| Request to enjoin state-court litigation (Anti-Injunction Act) | Glick asked federal court to enjoin pending state proceedings | Townsend invoked Anti-Injunction Act barring such relief absent an exception | Denied — Glick failed to show an applicable exception to the Anti-Injunction Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (ownership requires first actual use in commerce)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for § 1404(a) venue transfers)
- FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.) (moving party’s burden for civil contempt: clear and convincing proof of violation of a specific order)
- Montana v. BNSF Ry. Co., 623 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir.) (standards related to Anti-Injunction Act exceptions)
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.) (§ 1915 screening not limited to prisoners)