FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 17 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERT LERMA, Jr., DBA Stylistics No. 15-55270
Car Club, an individual,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:12-cv-06704-DDP-JEM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STYLISTICS LOS ANGELES CAR
CLUB, INC., a California corporation;
JORGE LUIS RAMIREZ, an individual,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BELL,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Jorge Luis Ramirez and his company, Stylistics Los Angeles Car Club, Inc.,
appeal the district court’s default judgment canceling their federal trademark
registration. Appellants’ primary contention is that the district court had
jurisdiction to only review the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
(TTAB) and not independently rule on trademark infringement claims. But
although the TTAB’s findings may indeed be challenged in district court, see 15
U.S.C. § 1071(b), nothing prevents a court from adjudicating an infringement
action under the general provisions of the Lanham Act, see 5 U.S.C § 1119. The
only effect the TTAB’s decision may have on district court proceedings is through
the doctrine of issue preclusion, see B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 1293, 1299, 1310 (2015), which is non-jurisdictional.
Appellants next argue that the district court erred in directing the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office to revoke their trademark registration because such relief
was not requested in the complaint, as required under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(c). But the complaint did request both an injunction against
Appellants’ use of the mark and an order declaring that Appellee is the mark’s
rightful owner. That relief does not “differ in kind,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c), from a
request to revoke the trademark registration.
AFFIRMED.
2