Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-06012
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. v. TikTok, Judge Illston listed questions for a hearing on defendants’ renewed dismissal motion.
The plaintiff and defendants in the case, concerning the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim and the pleading of its Chinese copyright claims.
What happened
Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. v. TikTok involved defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s third amended complaint, with a hearing scheduled for April 5, 2024.
The court asked both sides to address whether the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim was legally allowed under several Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions. It also asked the plaintiff why one Ninth Circuit decision did not require dismissal of that claim, and asked defendants whether Ninth Circuit law required the plaintiff to allege that its Chinese copyrights were first published only in China.
Judge Susan Illston issued the order on April 2, 2024, to give the parties advance notice of these questions. The order did not decide the renewed motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-06012
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 2, 2024
Purpose of the Order
The court issued this order before the April 5, 2024 hearing on defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The order listed questions that the court wanted the parties to address at the hearing.
Questions About the Lanham Act Claim
The court asked both parties why the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim was or was not legally cognizable under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), and OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. v. W. Worldwide Services, Inc., 897 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2018).
The court separately asked the plaintiff why Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Wired for Sound Karaoke & DJ Services, LLC, 845 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2017), did not require dismissal of the Lanham Act claim as a matter of law.
Questions About Copyright Registration
The court asked defendants about their argument that the plaintiff had failed to plead that its Chinese copyrights were exempt from the registration requirement in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Specifically, the court asked whether counsel could identify Ninth Circuit case law requiring the plaintiff to plead that its copyrights were first published solely in China.
Disposition
This was an order listing questions for a hearing, not a decision on the renewed motion to dismiss. The court did not grant or deny that motion in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.