CHERIE PHILLIPS and STOIC CHURCH OF PHILOSOPHY v. Sanderson Beck

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHERIE PHILLIPS and STOIC
CHURCH OF PHILOSOPHY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SANDERSON BECK, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15961
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00628-SOM-
KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Cherie Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her action claiming that Sanderson Beck infringed on her intellectual property
rights in her texts including Wisdom Bible of God, Stoic Encheiridion, and Stoic
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-15961 2
Doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Publ’ns, Inc., 198 F.3d 1143, 1146
n.2 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phillips’s
copyright claims because she did not raise a triable issue as to whether Beck had
access to the expanded edition of her Wisdom Bible of God, or as to whether there
was a substantial similarity between the Phillips’s and Beck’s other texts. See
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Absent
direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings
that the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are
substantially similar.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phillips’s
trademark claim because she did not establish a triable issue as to whether her title,
Wisdom Bible of God, had secondary meaning. See Filipino Yellow Pages, 198
F.3d at 1147, 1151.
We decline to consider Phillips’s contentions regarding claims that were not
raised below. See Dodd v. Hood River Cnty, 59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 1995).
We are not persuaded by Phillips’s remaining contentions, including those

-- 2 of 3 --

08-15961 3
of judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --