Plaintiff reading improvement service appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which was rendered in defendant reading improvement service's favor on plaintiff's complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Plaintiff reading improvement service filed a claim against defendant, another reading improvement service, alleging trademark violation and unfair competition. The trial court found in favor of defendant. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that because of the common use of the word "read" in virtually all contexts and the lack of authority holding its use as a telephone number created a special right, neither the symbol "READ" nor the telephone number "321-READ" was a mark entitled to protection. Given the alphanumeric method by which both parties depicted their telephone numbers, a consumer might very well assume some connection between the two entities because of the corporate lawyer Los Angeles similar use of "READ," for purposes of the unfair competition claim. However, the court was precluded from acting on the unfair competition question raised on appeal and had to assume that the factual issues which pertained to that cause of action were appropriately raised and were properly resolved in favor of defendants, because the trial court did not make specific findings of fact regarding the unfair competition claim in its tentative decision.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court that found in defendant reading improvement services favor on plaintiff reading improvement service's complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court held that neither plaintiff's use of the word "read" as a symbol nor its use as part of a phone number constituted a trademark or service mark.
Appellant chiropractor sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which denied her petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging a decision from respondent California State Board of Chiropractic Examiners that revoked her chiropractic license under the Chiropractic Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 1000 et seq., based on fraudulent or excessive billing through medical and management corporations.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed decision in favor of the chiropractor. The board declined to adopt the proposed decision, made general and unchallenged findings about the chiropractor's involvement with the corporations' management and billing practices, and sustained some allegations of unprofessional conduct. The court found the evidence sufficient. Expert testimony about a pattern or scheme of improper billing supported findings as to specific billings. The board's findings sufficiently stated the factual basis for its decision pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b), and Gov. Code, § 11425.50, subd. (b). The board acted within its jurisdiction because it had authority under Gov. Code, § 11517, subd. (c)(2)(E), to reject the ALJ's proposed decision and because Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rulings relating to payments under Lab. Code, § 4600, did not bind the board. Claims of bias were forfeited because they had not been raised by affidavit under Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (c), or before the trial court. The chiropractor's lack of candor during the hearing supported a deviation from disciplinary guidelines under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 384.
The court affirmed the superior court's order.