SACRAMENTO – U.S. District Court Eastern District of California Judge William B. Shubb made rulings on motions for summary judgment in a dispute between a national fraternal agricultural organization and a disaffiliated California group over the use of the Grange trademarks.
The decision was entered Aug. 13. Plaintiff National Grange of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry was awarded summary judgment by Shubb on the counts of false designation of origin, federal false advertisement and copyright infringement, but was denied the claims of trespass and conversion.
The defendants, California Guild and Robert McFarland, were granted their motion for summary judgment regarding the claims of trespass and conversion.
The court also ruled that "National Grange, and its chartered California chapter, the California State Grange, are ... the exclusive authorized representatives of the California State Grange" and issued an injunction against the defendants from using the CSG, Granger and other trademarks or service marks or representing that they are affiliated with the California State Grange.
The origins of the dispute between the National Grange of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry and the California State Grange and the California Guild and McFarland begin a few years ago.
The California State Grange was created on July 15, 1873.
“In 2012, a dispute arose between the National Grange and the California State Grange, leading to the suspension of the California State Grange’s charter,” the court decision stated. “The National Grange revoked the California State Grange’s membership and the two disaffiliated in 2013."
In 2014, the National Grange chartered a new California Grange.
“What resulted after the split, then, were two California entities: a newly chartered California State Grange (i.e., along with the National Grange, plaintiffs to this action) and a disaffiliated entity led by (Robert) McFarland (i.e., defendants)," Shubb wrote.
Lawsuits were filed and the two organizations fought it out in court.
“In March 2014 the National Grange filed an action in this court against defendants for federal trademark infringement, trademark dilution, trademark counterfeiting and false advertisement under the Lanham Act," the court ruling stated.
A final decision was issued on Sept. 30, 2015, which defined a “permanent injunction prohibiting the revoked entity’s continued use of the 'Grange' trademarks,” the ruling states.
“Plaintiffs argue that despite the Grange I ruling, defendants have continued to cause division and confusion among the California Granges by publicly referring to itself as 'CSG' and '[f]ormerly the California State Grange,'" the court ruling stated.
This current action was filed in February 2016.
“Defendants argue, as they have twice before, that plaintiffs’ claims are subject to collateral estoppel and res judicata. The court rejected this argument in 2016 and again in 2017," Shubb noted in the court decision.