ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff Digby Adler Group LLC ("Plaintiff") for leave to file a first amended complaint. ECF No. 66 ("Mot."). Defendants Image Rent A Car, Inc. ("Image"), and Van Rental Co., Inc. ("Van Rental") (collectively, "Defendants") 19 filed an Opposition, and Plaintiff filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 80 ("Opp'n"), 81 ("Reply"). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff is a California limited liability company headquartered in San Francisco that rents cars and vans, with a focus on long-term rentals to touring music groups. ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 4, 10. Plaintiff operates rental locations in California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon, and provides van rentals for use throughout the United States. Id. ¶ 11. Since 2003, Plaintiff has done business under the service mark "Bandago" ("the Mark"). Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff filed an application to 4 register the Mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 5
In 2003, Plaintiff registered the Internet domain name bandago.com 7 and has since used it in connection with its van rental business.
On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants, alleging cybersquatting, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Lanham Act, as well as common law trademark 12 infringement and violation of Section 17200 of California's
Business and Professions Code. See Compl. Plaintiff alleges that 14 in August 2008, Van Rental, as an agent of Image, registered the
Internet domain name bandago.net. Id. ¶¶ 18-21. Plaintiff claims 16 that Defendants created a website at bandago.net that redirects 17 visitors to Imagerentacar.com. Id. ¶¶ 18-21. Plaintiff alleges 18 that Defendants had never before used the "Bandago" name in 19 commerce, and that Defendants used bandago.net solely to divert 20
Plaintiff's customers to Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25. Plaintiff 21 claims it has received calls from confused customers, and claims 22 that some customers have used Defendants' services rather than 23
On March 4, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 8. The Court denied this motion on 26 the basis that Defendants, who are both corporate entities, were 27 not represented by counsel in violation of Civil Local Rule 3-9(b).
ECF No. 9. On March 12, 2010, Defendants filed an almost identical
2008, but a Certificate of Registration has not yet issued. Id.