Kudos Inc v. Kudoboard LLC

Background

Kudos Inc. sued Kudoboard LLC and Aaron Rubens. Kudos alleged infringement of its “KUDOS” marks and unfair competition. The defendants denied those claims, asserted that “KUDOBOARD” did not infringe Kudos’s marks, and brought counterclaims seeking cancellation of the “KUDOS” marks.

The order resolves two discovery letters concerning depositions, interrogatories, and document requests. It is a discovery order rather than a decision on the trademark or unfair-competition claims.

Rulings on Kudos’s Requests

1. Additional deposition of Aaron Rubens: The court granted Kudos’s request to continue the deposition of Kudoboard’s designated corporate witness, Aaron Rubens, because Kudos received relevant documents after his deposition. Kudos was allowed two additional hours of deposition testimony.

2. Late responses and waived objections: The court denied Kudos’s request to deem all objections to its second set of discovery requests and interrogatories waived. The court noted that the responses were produced after a short delay, were ultimately provided, and there was no evidence of bad faith.

3. Trello account: The court ordered the defendants to produce documents related to their Trello account or confirm whether such documents exist. The court found the account potentially relevant because it concerned development of Kudoboard’s employee-recognition beta, which could bear on trademark-confusion issues.

4. Documents controlled by Kyler Deutmeyer: The court granted Kudos’s request and ordered the defendants to produce documents and communications in Deutmeyer’s possession or control. The order states that the defendants did not have to produce engineering or software code.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Requests

1. Additional testimony from Muni Boga: The opinion text provided does not include the court’s disposition of the defendants’ request for additional deposition testimony from Kudos’s corporate witness, Muni Boga. The request concerned whether Boga had been adequately prepared for his deposition.

2. Customer interfaces: The court granted the defendants’ request and ordered Kudos to produce copies of the interfaces customers would see when using Kudos’s products or services.

3. Trademark-watch notices: The court denied the defendants’ request for information about Kudos’s watch notices, which the opinion describes as alerts to trademark owners about potentially problematic marks.

4. Competitive-analysis materials: The court denied the defendants’ request for Kudos’s competitive-analysis documents and communications.

5. Privilege log: The provided text states that privilege logs were to be produced by September 24, 2021, but the excerpt does not show the preceding language identifying the party responsible or the court’s precise ruling on this request.

Disposition

This was an ancillary discovery ruling. The court granted and denied individual discovery requests as described above, without deciding whether either side ultimately prevailed on the trademark or unfair-competition claims. The order was signed by United States District Judge Susan Illston.