California Court of Appeal

In this case, plaintiff, a licensed bail agent, sued to enjoin defendant from engaging in bail agent activities in violation of state licensing and regulatory requirements. Judgment of the superior court sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's claim of false advertising under the federal Lanham Act and granting a defense motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claims alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and seeking declaratory relief is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff lacks standing to maintain a UCL claim; 2) undisputed evidence submitted by the parties shows that the commercial activities of defendant associated with its processing of credit or debit card transactions for cash bail payments do not require defendant to obtain a bail bond license, and so defendant is therefore not in violation of the UCL; and 3) the second cause of action in plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a Lanham Act claim as a matter of law, as plaintiff possesses no commercial interest in the misused mark, name, or device, or in the good that is allegedly being misrepresented.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/03/2015
• Published 02/03/2015

Judges

• Ruvolo

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel