{"id":447,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=447"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"clear-view-west-steinberg-trademark-trade-secret-12c-denied","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=447","title":{"rendered":"Clear View West v. Steinberg, Hall & Associates \u2014 N.D. Cal. denies judgment on pleadings in retractable-screens trademark and trade-secret suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Clear View West, LLC v. Steinberg, Hall & Associates, Inc., et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:23-cv-04774<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Lanham Act trademark infringement; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1114; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1125(a); Defend Trade Secrets Act; California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; breach of fiduciary duty; fraud; tortious interference; APOLLO vs. CLEARVIEW retractable screens; Director of Sales schemes<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Clear View West, LLC (CVW) develops retractable window and door screens. In 2010, CVW\u2019s owner Lezotte granted Samuel Steinberg and his company HIS exclusive distributorship rights for CVW products in Southern California, in exchange for which Steinberg performed services including running CLEARVIEW-related websites and advertising. After CVW acquired nationwide rights to the CLEARVIEW MARKS in 2016, Steinberg was appointed Director of Sales of CVW with access to all distributor sales and web data.<\/p>\n

According to CVW\u2019s First Amended Complaint, beginning in 2021 and continuing into 2023, Steinberg \u2014 while still serving as CVW\u2019s Director of Sales \u2014 schemed to create a knock-off retractable screen line, rebrand CVW\u2019s motorized screen as APOLLO, recruit CVW\u2019s top distributors to leave CVW for APOLLO under non-disclosure agreements that hid the effort, and cut CVW out of the profits. After terminating his relationship with CVW in June 2023, Steinberg allegedly cut off CLEARVIEW websites and phone numbers, rerouted historical CLEARVIEW phone numbers to APOLLO offices, and redirected existing CLEARVIEW websites to APOLLO websites \u2014 causing customer confusion and lost business.<\/p>\n

The First Amended Complaint asserts eleven counts against the Steinberg defendants: federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1114; unfair competition and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1125(a); common-law trademark infringement; California UCL violations; common-law unfair competition; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; fraud; misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal DTSA and California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; breach of confidence; and interference with prospective economic relationships. The Steinberg defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Susan Illston denied the motion in full.<\/p>\n

Applying the Rule 12(c) standard from Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner<\/em> and Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems<\/em>, which mirrors Rule 12(b)(6) under Twombly<\/em> and Iqbal<\/em>, the court found that CVW\u2019s detailed factual allegations plausibly stated each of the eleven causes of action.<\/p>\n

The Lanham Act trademark and false-designation claims were supported by allegations that the Steinberg defendants used CLEARVIEW MARKS and logos to mislead customers, redirected CLEARVIEW phone numbers to APOLLO, and routed CLEARVIEW website traffic to APOLLO websites \u2014 creating textbook likelihood of consumer confusion. Common-law trademark infringement and California UCL claims followed the same factual pattern.<\/p>\n

The breach of fiduciary duty claim was supported by Steinberg\u2019s alleged Director of Sales role at CVW, which gave him access to confidential distributor data and put him in a position of trust that he allegedly violated by orchestrating distributor defections through secret NDAs. Fraud allegations supported the same conduct under California\u2019s scienter standards. Trade-secret misappropriation under the DTSA and CUTSA was supported by allegations that Steinberg used CVW\u2019s confidential distributor information, sales data, and web usage data to recruit CVW\u2019s top distributors to APOLLO. Interference with prospective economic relationships, breach of confidence, and breach of contract claims also survived under the same factual matrix.<\/p>\n

Each of the Steinberg defendants\u2019 arguments \u2014 that the alleged conduct sounded only in contract, that trademark use was nominative, that there were no protectable trade secrets, that fiduciary duty did not extend to a distributor \u2014 failed at the pleading stage. The court emphasized that Rule 12(c) tests legal sufficiency of allegations taken as true, not factual disputes that belong at summary judgment or trial.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n