United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ecotechworld, Inc. and Alexander Vysotsky have filed a Motion
to Transfer Venue, see Dkt. No. 10, which United
States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay has referred to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for hearing, if
necessary, and determination, see Dkt. No. 14.
Vollara LLC, Vollara Concepts LLC, and DBG Group Investments
filed a response. See Dkt. No. 20. And Defendants
filed a reply. See Dkt. No. 23.
sell a variety of eco-friendly technologies, such as air and
water purification devices, through expressly authorized
distributors. See Dkt. No. 1 at 3. They are the
owners or licensees of numerous trademarks and have
registered several of the marks with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”). See Id. at
4. Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, EcoQuest
International, also used original trademarks in connection
with the sale and distribution of its air filtration products
and it registered several of the marks with the USPTO.
See Id. Several of the products bearing EcoQuest
trademarks also received designation as “Certified
Space Technology” by the United States Space Foundation
(“USSF”) - a non-profit that designates and
distinguishes products derived from space-related technology.
sued Defendants in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, asserting claims
for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair
competition, and misappropriation. See Dkt. No. 1.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are using Plaintiffs'
trademarks on their website and elsewhere on the Internet for
the purpose of selling Defendants' products without
Plaintiffs' consent. Plaintiffs also allege that
Defendants' use of Plaintiffs' trademarks is likely
to cause consumer confusion and deceive consumers by
suggesting that the products offered for sale by Defendants
are the same as or connected to Plaintiffs' products.
who are limited liability companies with their principal
places of business in Dallas, Texas, alleged that venue is
proper in the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred
within this judicial district or, in the alternative, because
a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this
district. See Id. at 2-3.
move to transfer venue to the Central District of California.
See Dkt. No. 10. Defendant Ecotech is a corporation
with its principal place of business in Tarzana California,
and Defendant Vysotsky is an individual who resides in
Reseda, California. See Id. at 2-3. Defendants argue
that their website, which is alleged to have been infringing
upon Plaintiffs' trademarks, is located in Tarzana,
California and that all repairs on air purifiers that are
conducted by Defendants will require customers to ship their
products or, if local, to bring the products to Los Angeles,
California. See Id. at 5. Defendants also argue that
Plaintiffs admit that the goods at issue are not the products
that Plaintiffs maintain in Texas but only the products in
Defendants' possession in California. See Id.
And Defendants argue that the injunctive relief sought by
Plaintiffs is primarily applicable in California and that the
majority of witnesses are located in California. See
Id. at 5-6.
respond that the Court should retain the case because all
three plaintiffs have their principal places of business in
Texas; Defendants are advertising and selling infringing
products bearing Plaintiffs' trademarks to consumers
within Texas through one or more highly interactive
commercial websites; Defendants have and are continuing to
accept and fulfill orders from Texas residents for these
products; Plaintiffs suffered injuries in Texas; and the
majority of Plaintiffs' witnesses are located in Texas.
See Dkt. No. 20 at 5, 9-10.
Court now determines that Defendant's Motion to Transfer
Venue [Dkt. No. 10] must be denied.
U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been
brought.” In applying Section 1404(a), the Court must
first determine “whether the judicial district to which
transfer is sought would have been a district in which the
claim could have been filed.” In re Volkswagen
AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004)
(“Volkswagen I”). Once this initial
determination is made, the Court
turn[s] to the language of § 1404(a), which speaks to
the issue of “the convenience of parties and
witnesses” and to the issue of “in the interest
of justice.” The determination of
“convenience” turns on a number of private and
public interest factors, none of which [is] given dispositive
weight. The private concerns include: (1) the relative ease
of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3)
the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all
other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious and inexpensive. The public concerns include: (1)
the administrative difficulties flowing from court
congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized