Virginia Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Cabinet Saver LLC, No. 5:2018cv00119 - Document 19 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 12/10/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE LJS.D4ST. COUR7 AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITE D STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STE RN D IST RICT O F W RGIN M H ARRTSO N BU RG D IW SIO N DE2 1 BYJu C 13 L , : DEP o W RG IN IA IN D U ST RIM ,, PM STICS,IN C., Plaintiffy CivilAction N o.5:18-cv-00119 CM IN ET SAV ER LLC, D efendant. By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ClziefU.S.DistdctJudge M E M O M N D U M O PIN IO N Tllism attercom esbeforethe courton PlainéffVirg' m 'l 'aIndusttialPlasdcs,Inc.'s (W P)modon to dismissDefendantCabinetSaverLLC'S(CS)countercbimspuàsuantto FederalRuleofCivilProcedure12q$(6),ftledonNovember19,2018.CShasftledno tesponseto thism otion. Forthereasonsexplained below ,the courtGRAN T S V1P'sm oéon to disnaissCS's countercbim s. V1P flled itscom plaintagainstCS on Septem ber12,2018.ECF N o.1.Tllissuit arisesfrom the use ofthenam e fTcabinetSavers,''used by both pardesto referto plasdc Virginia Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Cabinet Saver LLC Doc. 19 linersdesigned to protectkitchen sink cabinetsand othersutfacesfrom waterdam age.ECF No.1,!g13;ECF No.7,2.Both paréesmanufactureproductsofthisdescripéon.ECF No. 1,! 13;ECF No.7,2.VIP ownsUnited StatesTrademark RegistradonN o.5,426,605for theuseoftheffcabinetSaver':mark (theM arkl,filedwith theUnitedStatesPatentand Dockets.Justia.com CLERK K TrademarkOffice(USPTO)onluly14,2017.ECF No.1,!79ECFNo.7,1.Inits complaint,VIP allegestrademark infringement,falseassociation/falseendozsement,false designadon ofsourceand/ororigm ',andunfaitcompeddon againstCS.ECF No.1. In itsanswerto the com plnint,CS bzingstwo counterclsim s:tradem atk infdngem ent by VIP and unfaircom peddon byV IP.ECF N o.7.CA clnim sthatitwasusing them azk ffcabinetSaver''in com m erce beforeVIP began using it,and thatVIP knew ofCS'suse and TfadoptedtheMarkinanattempttohijacktheMark,causeconfusionastothesoutceof goodsand servicesprovided undertheM ark,and to interferewit.h CabinetSaver'suseofthe M atk.''ECF N o.7,1. II. Rule12q$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedùrepermitsapartytomovefor disrnissalofacom plaintforfailureto statea clnim upon which reliefcan begranted. To sutviveamotiontodisnnissunderRule129$(6),theplainéffmustpleadsufhcientfactsffto raise arightto reliefabove the speculaévelevel''and ffstate acbim to reliefthatisplausible onitsface.''BellAtl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,555,570(2007).A pl/indff estabishesTffacialplausibilitf'bypleadingfffacttzalcontentthatallowsthecourttodraw the reasonableinferencethatthedefendantisliable forthenlisconductalleged.''A shcroftv. tqb-a-1,556U.S.662,678(2009).In tnllingona124$(6)motion,thecouttmustacceptall . well-pleaded allegationsin the com plaintastt'ue and dzaw allreasonable facm alinferencesin thelightmostfavorableto theplainéff Ibatrav.UnitedStates,120F.3d472,474 (4th Cir. 1997).However,Tfgtjhreadbarerecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofacéon,supported by m eteconclusory statem ents,do notsuffk e.''Lqbal,556U .S.at678;seeW a M oteD o s LLCv.Cozarq680F.3d359,365(4thCir.2012)Soldingthecotzrtffneednotacceptlegal conclusionscouched as factsorunw artanted inferences,unreasonable conclusions,or arguments'')(internalquotadonmarksornitted). A complaintoffraudmustbepledwithpaocularity,accordingtoRule9q$.f<To sadsfytheheightenedpleadingstandazdofRule99$,aplnindffmuststatewithpatticularity Tthetim e,place,and contentsofthe falsetepresentadons,asw ellastlae idendty ofthe person m aldng thenlisrepresentadon and whathe obtzned thereby.'''Beasle v.FV-1 lnc., 1:13-CV-116,2013W L 1192018,at*3(.E.D.Va.Mar.21,2013)(quotingInreMut.Funds Inv.Liti.,566F.3d111,120(4thCir.2009)).FailuretocomplywithRule9$)'spleacling standardistzeatedasafailtlretostateaclnim underRule129$(6).J-I. L(quotingHardsonv. W esdn houseSavannahmverCo.176F.3d776,783n.5(4thCir.1999)). 111. In itsm odon to clisnaiss,V1P arguesthatCS failed to m eetthe standard setbyRule 9(b)byplealingthefacttzalcirctzmstancesofitscountercllims.ECF No.16,2.VIP also arguesthatCS hasfailed to ffestablish alegally cognizable causeofacdon''by fgiling to factazally fçsubstanéatea basesfor fraud''on theU SPTO .Id.The colztt'sdecision regarding thelatterofthesetwoobjectionseliminatestheneedtoaddtesstheformer. To establish tradem arkinfringem entundertheLanham A ct,aplaintiffm ustprove: (1)thatitownsavalidmazk;(2)thatthedefendantused thematk Tfin commerce''and svithouttheplaintiff'sauthorizadon;(3)thatthedefendantused themark (oran itnitadon of it)Tfin connection vrith thesale,offering forsale,distribution,ozadvertising''ofgoodsor services;and (4)thatthedefendant'suseofthem atkislikely to confuseconsumers.15 U.S.C.j1114(a)(2005);seeLouisVuittonMallederS.A.v.HauteDiggityDog,LLC,507 F.3d252,259(4thCir.2007);Peo lefoztheEthicalTreaûnentofAnitnalsv.Dou hne , 263F.3d 359,364 (4th Cit.2001).Noneoftheseelementsreqlxiresashowing offzaud.ln its flrstcountercbim oftzadem ark infzingem ent,however,CS allegesthatTfVIP obtained a federaltradem azk registtation fraudulently in thatVIP fraudulently alleged adate offttstuse oftheM ark alm ostten yeatspriorto itsactualflrstuseoftheM ark,and forthe solepulpose ofinfringing on CabinetSaver'sTradem arkrights.':ECF N o.7,5.Thiscllim m ergesthe second elem entoftradem azltinfringem entsvith an allegation offraud;in effect,CS alleges fraudin theproctuemenqand such aclaim issubjectto theheightened standardsofRule 9q$.RepublicTechnologies(NA),LLCv.BBK Tobacco& Foods,LLC,262F.Supp.3d 605,608-09. IN.D.1tl.2017). To state acause ofaction forfraud,aplainéffm ustplead thattherew as<<afalse representation ofam aterialfact,m adeintentionally and knowingly,Mrith intentto rrlislead.': Salesv.Kecou htan Housin Co.Ltd,279Va.475,481,690S.E.2d 91,94 (2010).The plaintiffm ustalso plead relianceon thatfalse representation and resulting dam ages.Ld= . Pleading fraud in theprocurem entofatradem ark tequiresproofthe ttadem ark ownerm ade a falserepresentaéon ofm aterialfactto theUSPTO ,and butfortheU SPTO 'Sreliance on the falserepresentation,theregisttaéon wotlld nothave been issued.ecash Technolo 'es Inc.v.Gua liardo,136F.Supp.2d 1056,1064 (C.D.Cal2000). CS'sclearestdefk iencyin itscounterclnim isitsallegaéon thatVIP ffobtained a fedezaltrademarkregistration fraudulentlyinthatVIP'sgsicqfraudulentlyallegedadateof ftrstuse oftheM azk alm ostten yearspriorto itsacttzalftrstuse ofthe M ark,and fot the sole 4 purpose ofinfringing on CabinetSaver'stradem ark rights.''ECF N o.7,5.CS'sclaim of tradem ark infringem ent,therefore,restsupon V 1P'salleged erroneousdate offlrstuse.An erroneousdate offirstuse,however,cannotbe the g' roundsforsuch a clnim .The TrademarkTlialand AppealBoatd rfrademarkBoard)hasregularlyruled thatffanincorrect statem entofthedate offtrstuseisnotm aterial,and therefore notfraudulent,aslong asthe actualfttstuse occutted priorto the application date.''See e. .,Pon Ex .CourierCo .of Am.v.Pon Ex .Delive Serv'.,872F.2d317,319(9thCir.1989)(ffTheclnim ofadateof flrstuseisnotam aterialallegaéon aslong asthe firstusein factprecede'd the applicaéon date.');Lewisv.MicrosoftCo .,410 F.Supp.2d 432,437-38 (E.D.N.C.2006),aff'd,222 F.App'x290 (4th Cir.2007)(finding trademark infringementcloimswerebarredbyLç-q judicataafterthtTradçmark Board held thatan incozrectdateofflrstusewasnotmatedal and clidnotconsdtutefraud);Geor ia-southern 011Inc.v.H arv' e X chardson,16 U.S.P.Q.Zd1723(T.T.A.B.July19,1990)(fThus,thedateofflrstuseaEegedbyapplicantin itsapplicatbn,eveniffalse,cannotbesaid to consdmtefraud on theoffice.'l. The cotzrttakesguidance ftom M onsterD add LLC v.M onsterCableProducts Inc.,in which theplainéff,M onsterD addy,following a failed settlem entagreem entbetween the partiesregarding useofthe ffM onster''m atk,flled suitagainstthe defendant,M onster Cable,seeldng specihc perform anceoftheagreem ent.N o.CA 6:10-1170-H M H ,2010 W L 4853661,at*1-2 O .S.C.N ov.23,2010).M onsterCableresponded with nlzm erous countercllim s,including oneoffraud.Ld=M onsterCable alleged thatM onsterD addy . falsified yhç date ofitsfustuse oftheM onstezm ark in itsstatem entofuse field,tlm s com m ii ng ftaud on the USPTO .Ldsat*3.Thecourtrej ected tllisargppment,notingthe . absence ofany legalauthority supporéng the contendon thatafalse dateoffltstusecould everbem aterialwhen theapplicant'sactualuse occurred priorto theapplicaéon filing date. 1d.Thecourtheld thatfozM onsterCable'scountercllim offraud to have facialplausibility, M onsterCablehad to plead factsgivingrise ffto areasonable inference thatM onsterD addy failed to use the M onsterm atk when itfied itsstatem entofuse.''ld. The factsathand ate m atkedly sim ilr .A stheM onstetD add courtnoted,tlaeteis no legalauthority showing thatan erroneousdate offlzstuse givesrise to aclnim offraud so long asthe acttzaldate offlzstusepreceded thedate ofthe application.SeeM onsterD add , 2010 W L 4853661,at*3.LikeM onsterCable,CS haspled only onem isrepresentation in its counterclnim - a nnisrepresentadon thatis,by law ,im m atezial.A n allegaéon thatVIP did not use the dfcabinetSaver''m ark before filing itsapplication would consdtutea m aterial m isrepresentadon byVIP and could giveriseto fzaud,butCS hasnotpled this.See ECF N o.7,5.CS hastherefore failed to plead rnisrepresentation ofam aterialfact. Rule9$)zequiresaplaintiffpleadafalserepresentationmadetotheUSPTO of m aterialfactin orderto state a claim offraud on the USPTO .M arshak v,Treadwell,58 F. Supp.2d 551,566 O .N. J.1999).CShasfailedto do so,andthusitscllim offraudulent procurem entofatradem ark fails.CS'scounterclnim oftradem ark infringem entrestson this clnim,andthereforedoesnotmeetRule9$)'sstandardofpleacling.SeeECF No.7,5. CS'ssecond countetclaim (unfaircompeétion byVIP)incom oratesbyreferenceall allegationsm ade in itsftrstcountezcl/im and relieson V1P'suse offTa falsedesignaéon of ozigin and false orrnisleading representadon offactasto tlae otigin ofitsgoods,''by using theM ark.ECF N o.7,5.CS'sclnim offraud isno m ore successfulin the contextofunfair com petition than itisin thecontextofttadem ark infringem ent.Therefore,CS'ssecond counterclnim also failsto meetthe9(b)standatd.l IV . VIP'sm odon to disrnissisG RAN T ED .The coutt,however,grantsCS leaveto am end itscountetclcim s. An apptoptiate O RD E R willbeentezed. snteted, yg - ggn--a ?..sa?v fl M ichaelF.Urbanski United StatesDisttictludge 1VIP also azguesin itsm em orandlxm in supportofitsm odon to ctism isstlmtCS failsto plead W :IZsufscient pardctzlaritythefactssurrolm clingW P'szepresentadpn.ECF N o.16,5.Speco cally,W P arguesthatCSdoesnot ffprovidefactsshowing the tim e orplacewhere itallegesW P m ade the fraudulentrepzesentadons,''doesnotprovide fTany supportregarding how thealleged date offt rstuse wasfraudulent,''and doesnotffidendfy theW P representaéve whopum ortedlymadetheserepresentationsy''thusprevendngazeasonableinferenceofintent.LcLat6.W bilesomeof theseargum entsm ighthavem ezit,thecourtdeclinesto addressthem .Thc courtneed notreach adecision,given tlze abovedism issalofthecotm tercbim sforfat 'llzretoplead am atedalrnisrepresentadon asam atleroflaw . 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
