Court orders transfer of trademark to Magas Corporation to support legal battle over infringement

TO streamline a copyright infringement lawsuit in California, Superior Court Judge Joseph N. Camacho has granted the petition of May R. Cabrera to transfer the late Francisco Deleon Guerrero Cabrera’s ownership of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Registered Trademark No. 3566485 “Magas Stressfree C.N.M.I. Company,” to the Magas Corporation, a closely held family corporation.

May R. Cabrera’s husband, Francisco DLG Cabrera, died intestate — that is, without a will — on Nov. 25, 2019. He was 41 years old.

On Nov. 14, 2024, according to court documents, a petition for letters of administration was filed.

On Dec. 5, 2024, a notice to potential creditors was published. Since then, the 60-day deadline to file a claim has passed, and no creditor has filed a claim.

Francisco’s heirs are his wife May and their two minor children. 

On Dec. 6, 2024 May Cabrera was appointed as administrator of her late husband’s estate. On Dec. 6, 2024, Nicolette Villagomez Inos was appointed as guardian ad litem for the two minor children. 

Prior to his death, Francisco formed a corporation known as Magas Corporation, a small, closely held corporation. Magas is a Chamorro word for “head,” “boss,” “chief,” “leader,” or “great.”

Both Francisco and May Cabrera were the sole shareholders, each owning 50% of Magas Corporation’s shares.

Magas Corporation does business as 670 Rocksteady Shop on Middle Road, Saipan, and also sells its goods online to many locations.

Before the formation of Magas Corporation, Francisco applied for, and was granted, a federally registered trademark, “Magas Stressfree C.N.M.I. Company,” under the ownership of Francisco DLG Cabrera. 

Francisco and May Cabrera, and later Magas Corporation, used this trademark and other related trademarks in commerce, producing and selling clothing under variations of the trademark such as “Magas Stressfree C.N.M.I. Company” and “Magas.” 

The trademark is still used in commerce to this day, and remains federally registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

However, May Cabrera learned that a company in California was producing and selling clothing that infringed on the trademark.

Litigation to protect the trademark intellectual property interest has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Eastern Division in Riverside, California. 

May Cabrera has been advised by her attorney handling the trademark litigation that the assignment of the trademark as an asset of Francisco’s Estate to an asset of Magas Corporation will facilitate the trademark infringement litigation.

On Feb. 21, 2025, May Cabrera as administrator filed an inventory listing the estate assets which include the trademark and Magas Corporation. 

On Feb. 27, 2025, May Cabrera filed a motion to transfer ownership of the trademark from Francisco’s Estate to Magas Corporation.

The guardian ad litem for the two minor children expressed agreement and support for the transfer of ownership of the trademark from Francisco’s Estate to Magas Corporation.

According to Judge Camacho’s order, “Pursuant to 8 CMC § 2903, when there is a surviving spouse and issues of the decedent, the surviving spouse receives half of the ‘other properties’ and the issues receive the remaining half of the ‘other properties’ by representation.”

“Here,” the judge added, “May R. Cabrera is the surviving spouse, therefore she inherits one-half (50%) of the value of the trademark. The two minor children as issues of Francisco share the remaining half by representation, meaning each child has a 25% interest in the value of the trademark.”

According to Judge Camacho, the transfer of the trademark to the Magas Corporation benefits the estate and the heirs.

As for the copyright infringement litigation in California, the lawsuit named Keith Duenas, Magas Originals LLC, and 10 John Does as defendants.

The complaint demands jury trial and alleges federal service mark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal false designation of origin, state unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement.

Visited 40 times, 1 visit(s) today
[social_share]

Weekly Poll

Latest E-edition

Please login to access your e-Edition.

+