throbber
Case 3:22-cv-01462-VC Document 64 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`LEFT FIELD HOLDINGS, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-cv-01462-VC
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 44
`
`The plaintiffs in this case don’t like how Google facilitates online orders from their
`
`restaurants. They try to articulate claims for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false
`
`association, and false advertising. They don’t succeed, especially considering Rule 9(b)’s
`
`heightened pleading requirements for claims sounding in fraud.1
`
`
`
`One of the plaintiffs’ theories is that the “Order Online” or “Order Delivery” button is
`
`misleading by itself because it is near the restaurant’s name and is surrounded by links that
`
`would otherwise “directly connect the consumer to the restaurant.” Dkt. No. 41 at 14–15. It is
`
`true that the “Website” and “Call” links would do so. Whether a “Directions” link connects
`
`someone directly to a destination is debatable. But in any case, an equally prominent button
`
`allows the user to save the restaurant within their Google account to find later. There is also a
`
`star rating and a blue link to “Google reviews,” which are obviously not provided by the
`
`restaurant. In context, the contested button is not false association or false advertising. And the
`
`use of the restaurant’s name here is a textbook example of nominative fair use: There is no other
`
`
`1 This order assumes the reader is familiar with the case.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01462-VC Document 64 Filed 11/18/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`way to identify the restaurant; Google uses only the plain name, not a stylized logo; and there is
`
`no improper suggestion of sponsorship or endorsement. New Kids on the Block v. News America
`
`Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, in no way does this page
`
`conceivably amount to counterfeiting.
`
`
`
`When a user clicks the “Order Online” or “Order Delivery” button, they will sometimes
`
`be taken to a page where they can place a delivery order for food from the restaurant. Dkt.
`
`No. 41 at 16. The plaintiffs claim that orders from this page are sent to a delivery provider
`
`“unbeknownst to the restaurant.” Id. at 18. But the involvement of a delivery provider is not
`
`hidden from the user. The plaintiffs’ screenshots show that the order will be processed by
`
`“Delivery Dudes,” a delivery provider that apparently charges a $2.99 delivery fee but requires
`
`no minimum order and promises delivery within 45 minutes. Id. at 16–18, figs. 5, 6, 8. The
`
`complaint further alleges that if there are multiple delivery providers available, the user selects
`
`which to use. Id. at 17. Those facts are not consistent with false association or false advertising.
`
`The use of the restaurant’s mark here is also nominative fair use, since it does not improperly
`
`imply an association with the restaurant. This use is also not counterfeiting: A customer who
`
`places an order gets food from the restaurant, not Google.
`
`
`
`If a user isn’t taken to a “storefront” page to place an order, they will instead see what the
`
`plaintiffs call a “landing” page. The landing page shows a list of options to place an order for
`
`pickup or delivery. Id. at 24, fig. 10. It is difficult to imagine how a page like this could support
`
`any of the plaintiffs’ claims. But the biggest problem is that the plaintiffs omitted the page’s
`
`footer, which features a prominent Google logo—undercutting the theory that the page is
`
`misleading.2 Perhaps this was inadvertent. But in a complaint alleging misleading design
`
`choices, cropping out such an important part of the page raises serious Rule 11 concerns about
`
`the twelve lawyers who signed the amended complaint. Those lawyers include Hausfeld partners
`
`
`2 The full page was provided by Google, Dkt. No. 45-6, and may be considered in resolving this
`motion because it is incorporated by reference in the complaint. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d
`1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court did not consider the other exhibits to Google’s request for
`judicial notice in deciding this motion.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01462-VC Document 64 Filed 11/18/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Michael Lehmann and Bonny Sweeney; Sperling & Slater partners Eamon Kelly, Trevor
`
`Scheetz, Bruce Sperling, and Joseph Vanek; and Keller Lenkner (now Keller Postman) partners
`
`Seth Meyer and Jason Zweig.
`
`The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due within
`
`21 days of this order. The initial case management conference is set for February 15, 2023. A
`
`case management statement is due February 8, 2023.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: November 18, 2022
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`VINCE CHHABRIA
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket