Airs Aromatics LLC v. Mine Hakim et al
Filing
23
ORDER granting defendants Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint 12 , 13 . Defendants motion for sanctions is denied by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (lc) Modified on 5/21/2012 (lc).
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
AIRS AROMATICS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability
company,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
v.
MINE HAKIM, individually and
doing business as BIRCH BAY
AROMATICS,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-08709 DDP (JPRx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
[Dkt Nos. 12, 13]
18
19
Presently before the court is defendant Mine Hakim (“Hakim”)’s
20
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
21
submissions of the parties and heard oral argument, the court
22
grants the motion and adopt the following order.1
23
I.
24
Having considered the
Background
This is the latest in a series of disputes regarding the
25
trademarks “Angel Dreams” and “Airs” (“the trademarks”).
26
nonparty AIRS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Airs International”) began
27
using the trademarks.
(Complaint ¶ 10.)
In 1993,
As determined during the
28
1
Defendant’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is
GRANTED.
1
course of prior litigation in the District of Nevada, nonparty
2
Stephen Marcus (“Marcus”) was the owner and sole shareholder of
3
Airs International.
4
International was facing insolvency.
5
defraud creditors, Marcus caused Airs International to transfer the
6
trademarks to his assistant, Defendant Hakim.
7
result of that fraud, in 2008 the District of Nevada in Air
8
Fragrance Products, Inc. v. Clover Gifts, Inc. 2:05-CV-0960-RCFJ-
9
RJJ (“Clover Gifts”)enjoined Marcus, Hakim, “and any agents,
(RJN Ex. A at 9.)
By the year 2000, Airs
(Id.)
As part of a scheme to
(Id. at 16.)
As a
10
representatives or anyone in concert with or in control of these
11
parties” from claiming rights to the trademarks superior to that of
12
any other party.
13
defunct at the time, was not a party to the Clover Gifts suit.
(RJN Ex. A at 17.)
Airs International, being
14
At some point subsequent to Clover Gifts, Marcus resurrected
15
Airs International, which then assigned its trademark rights to a
16
new entity, Plaintiff AIRS AROMATICS, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Airs
17
Aromatics”).
18
Birch Bay Aromatics, has been using the trademarks.
19
15.)
20
competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and seeking
21
damages and injunctive relief.
22
Plaintiff’s complaint.
23
II.
24
(Compl. ¶ 11.)
Defendant Hakim, doing business as
(Compl. ¶¶ 12-
Airs Aromatics brought the instant suit, alleging unfair
Defendant now moves to dismiss
Legal Standard
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it contains
25
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
26
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
27
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
28
544, 570 (2007)).
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court
2
1
must “accept as true all allegations of material fact and must
2
construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
3
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
4
complaint need not include “detailed factual allegations,” it must
5
offer “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
6
accusation.”
7
allegations that are no more than a statement of a legal conclusion
8
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 1950. In
9
other words, a pleading that merely offers “labels and
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Although a
Conclusory allegations or
10
conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation of the elements,” or “naked
11
assertions” will not be sufficient to state a claim upon which
12
relief can be granted. Id. at 1949 (citations and internal
13
quotation marks omitted).
14
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
15
assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
16
give rise to an entitlement of relief.” Id. at 1950. Plaintiffs
17
must allege “plausible grounds to infer” that their claims rise
18
“above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-
19
56. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
20
relief” is a “context-specific” task, “requiring the reviewing
21
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal,
22
129 S. Ct. at 1950.
23
III. Discussion
24
Defendant argues that this case should be dismissed because 1)
25
Plaintiff’s claims are barred be the doctrine of res judicata as a
26
result of the Clover Gifts order enjoining Marcus or anyone in
27
concert with him from asserting rights to the trademarks, and 2)
28
3
1
Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a trademark claim.
2
7,11.)
3
(Mot. at
Plaintiff recently brought similar trademark claims against a
4
different defendant in this very court in Airs Aromatics, LLC v.
5
Victoria Secret Stores Brands Management, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-
6
04718-R-JC (“Victoria Secret”).
7
Airs International had no trademark rights to the trademarks at
8
issue here, and therefore could not have assigned any such rights
9
to Plaintiff.
There, the defendant argued that
(RJN Ex. C. at 32.)
The court agreed, noting that
10
Airs International was defunct through 2011 and had therefore
11
abandoned any rights to the trademarks it may have once possessed.
12
(Id. at 33.)
13
trademark claims against Defendant here.
14
Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327-328 (1979) (describing defensive
15
collateral estoppel); Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874,
16
881 (9th Cir. 2007)(distinguishing offense and defensive estoppel).
17
IV.
18
19
Accordingly, Plaintiff is estopped from raising
See Parklane Hosiery Co.,
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.2
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: May 21, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. The court notes
that Plaintiff has appealed the court’s order dismissing the
Victoria Secret case.
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
