A federal judge from the District of Kansas has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss in a trademark dispute involving two baseball academies, finding that the plaintiff has “sufficiently alleged plausible trademark claims.”
Plaintiff Advanced Baseball Academy filed the trademark action against defendants Google, Inc.; Gold Glove Baseball Academy LLC; Gold Glove Baseball and Softball; and Gold Line Apparel. The plaintiff initially brought various Lanham Act trademark claims, including trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition; a claim for copyright infringement; and two Kansas common law claims for unfair competition and trademark infringement. The claims all related to the defendants’ alleged infringement of plaintiff’s logo (LOGO MARK) and the words “Gold Glove Boot Camp” (WORD MARK). After filing the complaint, the plaintiff dismissed Google, Inc. as a defendant, and also dismissed its copyright claim.
The remaining defendants then moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that they are entitled to dismissal for two reasons: (1) The plaintiff cannot recover for infringement of the LOGO MARK because defendants used the logo before the plaintiff did; and (2) The WORD MARK is such a generic term that, as a matter of law, there is no risk of consumer confusion.
The plaintiff, meanwhile, alleged that the defendants have used the plaintiff’s same LOGO MARK on the Internet and in advertisements. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants’ use of the terms “Gold Glove KC” and “Gold Glove Academy” infringe on its WORD MARK.
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for the following three reasons:
“First, regarding the LOGO MARK claims, the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible infringement claim and comply with the pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Second, the defendants have not shown as a matter of law that their ‘prior use’ claim justifies dismissal of the LOGO MARK claims. Finally, regarding the WORD MARK claims, defendants’ consumer confusion arguments center on fact-intensive issues that are not proper to resolve at the motion-to-dismiss stage.”
Advanced Baseball Academy, LLC v. Google, INC., et al.; D. Kan.; Case No. 14-2461-CM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40151; 3/30/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Arthur K. Shaffer, Intellectual Property Center, LLC, Overland Park, KS. (for defendant) Joseph B. Dioszeghy, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore, LLC, Kansas City, MO.
