Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simple Design Ltd. v. Candymobi Information Technology Co.

United States District Court, N.D. California

December 16, 2019

SIMPLE DESIGN LTD., a British Virgin Islands limited company, doing business as LEAP FITNESS Plaintiff,
v.
CANDYMOBI INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., a Hong Kong company, BEIJING AIPU CENTURY TECHNOLOGY CO., a China company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER [PROPOSED]

          Hon. Vince Chhabria Judge.

         Plaintiff Simple Design Ltd. has filed an administrative motion for leave to take limited discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. (Docket No. 13.)

         Plaintiff seeks to obtain physical addresses and information regarding the named Defendants and to identify the Doe defendants named in the Verified Complaint (Docket No. 1), each of whom are allegedly responsible for Federal Trademark infringement, violation of the Lanham Act and unfair competition occurring as the result of their unauthorized display and distribution of two or more software applications designed for women's health and fitness, being published via the Google Play Store at www.play.google.com/store.

         In support of its Motion, Plaintiff has filed the Declaration of Stephen L. Anderson which has advised this Court that after mailing a copy of the Summons and Complaint in this action to Defendant Candymobi Information Technology Co. in Hong Kong, that all of the Defendant's contact information, including its physical address has been removed from the corresponding website, namely, www.candymobi.com. (Docket Nos. 11-1 and 12-1 at paragraph 4).

         Plaintiff has also filed printouts from the Google Play Store identifying each of the allegedly infringing software applications. (Exhibits to Anderson Declaration - Docket Nos. 11-2 and 12-2.) As is shown within such Exhibits:

-lecongnama9x@gmail.com is the e-mail address listed on the Google Play Store for the developer “Candyapps Studio” related to the software application entitled: “Women workout - 30 day fitness app for weight loss”, alleged as “App Icon 1” and “Infringing App. 1” at paragraphs 8, 8(1), 24, 25 and elsewhere within Plaintiff's Verified Complaint (Document No. 1);
-senia455641@gmail.com is the e-mail address listed on the Google Play Store for the developer “Super Fitness App” related to the software application entitled: “Workout for women - Female Fitness to lose weight”, alleged as “App Icon 2” and “Infringing App. 2” at paragraphs 8, 8(2), 27 and elsewhere within the Verified Complaint; Id. and
-seniawang0917@gmail.com is the email address listed on the Privacy Policy for the developer on the Google Play Store https://policyworkoutforwomen.weebly.com/. (Anderson Decl. ¶8)

         Plaintiff requests leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on third-party source, Google, Inc. (“Google”). Finding good cause for the motion

         For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court GRANTS plaintiff leave to serve subpoenas on Google.

         I. Google email addresses and developer account information

         Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a subpoena on Google in order to obtain the account information including the names and address for three email addresses, namely: lecongnama9x@gmail.com, senia455641@gmail.com, and seniawang0917@gmail.com and further seeks account information and log-in information for the Google Play developer accounts “Candyapps Studio” and “Super Fitness App”.

         Rule 26(d) provides, in part, that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except [...] when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Expedited discovery is appropriate under Rule 26(d) when good cause for the discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-4, 2006 WL 1343597, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr.19, 2006). “Courts have recognized that good cause is frequently found in cases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition.” Id.; Semitool, Inc.; Pod-Ners, LLC v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liab. Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002).

         Plaintiff argues that it meets the four factors to show good cause laid out in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com. 185 F.R.D. 573, 587-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). These factors include identifying with sufficient specificity defendant(s) as individuals who can be sued in federal court, recounting all steps taken to locate and identify defendant(s), showing the action could survive a motion to dismiss, and justifying the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.