You are on page 1of 16

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID L. FEHRMAN (CA SBN 87400) dfehrman@mofo.com BITA RAHEBI (CA SBN 209351) brahebi@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com FRANCIS C. HO (CA SBN 247426) fho@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. CV 13-00209-CJC-JPR YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICAS NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS Date: April 29, 2013 Time: 1:30 PM Place: Ct. Rm. 9B Judge: Hon. Cormac J. Carney

1
la-1204973

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 29, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge, Central District of California, Southern Division, located at 411 West Fourth Street, Ct. Rm. 9B, Santa Ana, California 92701-4516, Defendant Yamaha Corporation of America will move, and hereby does move to dismiss Plaintiff Beats Electronics, LLCs first, fourth and fifth causes of action in its Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, Defendants supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the court records and files in this action. This motion is made following conferences of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 which took place on March 21, 2013.

2
la-1204973

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated:

March 29, 2013

By: /s/ __Bita Rahebi______ ________ David L. Fehrman (CA SBN 87400) dfehrman@mofo.com Bita Rahebi (CA SBN 209351) brahebi@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 Jennifer Lee Taylor (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com Francis C. Ho(CA SBN 247426) fho@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant Yamaha Corporation of America

3
la-1204973

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID L. FEHRMAN (CA SBN 87400) dfehrman@mofo.com BITA RAHEBI (CA SBN 209351) brahebi@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com FRANCIS C. HO (CA SBN 247426) fho@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. CV 13-00209-CJC-JPR YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICAS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS Date: April 29, 2013 Time: 1:30 PM Place: Ct. Rm. 9B Judge: Hon. Cormac J. Carney

sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. B. I. II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 2 A. The Court Should Dismiss Beats Lanham Act and Common Law Trade Dress Infringement Causes of Action (Counts 1 and 5) ..................................................................................................... 2 The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs State Unfair Competition Claims Asserted under Section 17200 and California Common Law (Counts 4-5) .................................................................................. 5

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 6

i
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2003).................................................................. 4 Autodesk, Inc. v. Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corp., No. C 08-04397 WHA, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109800 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) ..................................................................................... 3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................. 2 Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111465 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) ...................................................................................... 5 Denbicare U.S.A., Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 84 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 5 Disc Golf Assn, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 2, 4 First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 4 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 2 Salt Optics, Inc. v. Jand, Inc., No. SACV 10-0828 DOC (RNBx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131388 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) .................................................................................... 2 Sleep Sci. Partners v. Lieberman, No. 09-04200 CW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45385 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) ................................................................................. 2, 3 Smith & Hawken, Ltd. v. Gardendance, Inc., No. C 04-1664 SBA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22934 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2004) ...................................................................................... 3

ii
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-09517-ODW (RZ), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64029 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) ..................................................................................... 6 Zhixun Samuel Sun v. Rickenbacker Collections, No. 5:10-CV-1055 EJD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95429 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) ..................................................................................... 6 STATUTES Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ............................................................................ 5, 6 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 8.3 (4th ed. 2004) .............. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ................................................................................................. 2, 3, 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4).............................................................................................. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................... 2, 6

iii
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Yamaha Corporation of America (Yamaha) is the U.S.

subsidiary of Yamaha Corporation, the worlds largest musical instrument manufacturer and a leading pioneer in the development of audio/visual equipment. Among numerous other AV products, Yamaha sells in the United States premium high-fidelity consumer headphonesthe PRO 300, 400, and 500 headphones at issue in this case. On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff Beats Electronics, LLC (Beats) filed suit in this Court seeking to stifle competition by preventing Yamaha from selling its headphones. According to its complaint, among other things, Beats alleges that Yamahas PRO 300, 400, and 500 headphones infringe Beats trade dress rights and violate unfair competition laws. (ECF No. 1 3.) In its first cause of action, Beats alleges trade dress infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act (id. 17-24); In its fourth cause of action, Beats alleges violation of the California Unfair Practices Act based on trade dress violations (id. 37-42); and In its fifth cause of action, Beats alleges California common law trade dress infringement and unfair competition. (id. 43-47.) Yet, nowhere in its complaint does Beats identify the alleged trade dress or trade dresses to sufficiently put Yamaha on notice of Beats claims. Beats merely alleges that its trade dress consists of the overall appearance of the shape and design of the headphones, including the size, proportion and curvature of the headband, yoke, and earcups, as depicted in photos of its different products. (Id. 10.) But what is it about the claimed overall appearance, shape, design, size, proportion, and curvature of the headphone that makes it a protectable trade dress? Lacking sufficient notice, Yamaha is unable to respond to Beats claims. Accordingly, Yamaha respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action.
1
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II.

ARGUMENT A. The Court Should Dismiss Beats Lanham Act and Common Law Trade Dress Infringement Causes of Action (Counts 1 and 5)

Beats trade dress claims should be dismissed as they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A party must set out a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted) (holding plaintiffs failed to state enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and therefore their complaint must be dismissed). Courts have interpreted short and plain statement to require sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding Rule 8 pleading standard requires sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them). Specifically, a complaint for trade dress infringement must plead that (1) the claimed trade dress has acquired secondary meaning, (2) the claimed trade dress is nonfunctional, and (3) defendants product creates a likelihood of consumer confusion. See Disc Golf Assn, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1998). To that end, [a] plaintiff should clearly articulate its claimed trade dress to give a defendant sufficient notice of its claims. Sleep Sci. Partners v. Lieberman, No. 09-04200 CW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45385, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010). Courts in this District have dismissed causes of action that fail to adequately articulate the claimed trade dress. See, e.g., Salt Optics, Inc. v. Jand, Inc., No. SACV 10-0828 DOC (RNBx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131388, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (dismissing trade dress claim because complaint failed to describe the way that the listed elements, in conjunction, combine to create the websites protectible look and feel). Other Ninth Circuit courts have likewise dismissed
2
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

such defective causes of action. See, e.g., Sleep Sci. Partners, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45385, at *10 (dismissing trade dress claim as Plaintiff must more clearly describe the combination of elements contained in its television commercial for which it seeks trade dress protection); Autodesk, Inc. v. Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corp., No. C 08-04397 WHA, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109800, at *1214 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) (dismissing trade dress claim and explaining plaintiff must provide more detail and clarify the total appearance of the product at issue); Smith & Hawken, Ltd. v. Gardendance, Inc., No. C 04-1664 SBA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22934, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2004) (dismissing trade dress claim where plaintiff did not explain nature, scope or elements making up its allegedly protectable trade dress). Moreover, Professor J. Thomas McCarthys treatise on trademarks echoes the importance of sufficiently describing an alleged trade dress so that the court and the parties can coherently define exactly what the trade dress consists of and determine whether that trade dress is valid and if what the accused is doing is an infringement. See 1 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 8.3 (4th ed. 2004) (explaining the discrete elements which make up [the trade dress] should be separated out and identified in a list). Here, Beats does not adequately describe the alleged trade dress at issue. Rather, Beats merely recites that its trade dress is the size, proportion and curvature of the headband, yoke and earcups as depicted in the collection of products shown in Exhibits A-C. (ECF No. 1 10.) This bare description does not satisfy Rule 8. The products depicted in Exhibits A-C are each distinct, with different sizes, proportions and curvatures of the headband, yoke, and earcups. For instance, Exhibit A allegedly depicts Beats Studio Headphones, which have overthe-ear earcups that extend visibly beyond the yoke. Exhibit B, on the other hand, allegedly depicts Beats Solo Headphones, which have on-the-ear earcups that are almost completely covered by the yoke. The sizes and proportions are substantially different. And unlike the elliptical earcups of the Beats Studio and Solo
3
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

headphones, the earcups of the Beats Wireless headphones, allegedly depicted in Exhibit C, are circular in shape. Furthermore, in proportion to their respective headbands, the Beats Studio earcups are much larger than the Beats Solo earcups. Based on these differences, it is unclear what exactly Beats claims is the trade dress at issue. Also, pictures of Beats products do not put Yamaha on notice of what is claimed as trade dress. It is unclear whether Beats seeks protection of (1) a single trade dress that combines common elements from each of the Beats headphones in Exhibits A-C or (2) three distinct trade dresses, each separately directed to each Beats headphone in Exhibits A-C. Having merely listed general parts common to all headphones (i.e., a headband, yoke, and earcups) in its complaint, Beats has not put Yamaha on notice regarding what Beats claims is the trade dressor trade dressesat issue. Because Beats does not define its trade dress (or trade dresses), Beats also cannot allege facts sufficient to show that its undefined trade dress(es) has acquired secondary meaning or is non-functional. See Disc Golf Assn, 158 F.3d at 1005. Moreover, even if Beats had sufficiently defined its trade dress (which it has not), Beats merely repeats several times that its headphones are distinctive and nonfunctional, without any supporting facts. This is not sufficient. See Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941, 949-50 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing Lanham Act claim as complaint did little more than mimic the language of the statute). Beats should have provide[d] more detail about [its trade dress] to give the court sufficient information to determine whether [it] is eligible for trade dress protection. Id. These deficiencies make it impossible for Yamaha to adequately respond to Beats trade dress claims. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Beats first cause of action for trade dress infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and Beats fifth cause of action to the extent it alleges California common law trade dress infringement. See First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381
4
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(9th Cir. 1987) (analyzing Lanham Act and California common law trade dress claims under the same standard). B. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs State Unfair Competition Claims Asserted under Section 17200 and California Common Law (Counts 4-5)

This Court should also dismiss Beats fourth and fifth causes of action asserting state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and California common law. California law is clear that [s]tate common law claims of unfair competition and actions pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 17200 are substantially congruent to claims made under the Lanham Act. Denbicare U.S.A., Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 84 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 1996). Beats unfair competition claims are based on allegations of trade dress infringement. As to the section 17200 claim, Beats alleges unfair trade practices because Yamahas actions are likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding as to source, sponsorship of approval of Defendants goods. (ECF No. 1 40.) Beats also alleges Yamahas deceptive conduct also creates a likelihood of confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association of its goods with Beats well-known Studio Headphones, Solo Headphones, and Wireless Headphones. (Id.) Beats common law unfair competition claim is similarly grounded on trade dress infringement allegations. (Id. 45-46.) As Beats state unfair competition causes of action rely solely on defective Lanham Act and trade dress claims, as described above, the common law unfair competition and section 17200 causes of action fail as well. See Denbicare, 84 F.3d at 1152 ([S]ince dismissal of Denbicares Lanham Act claim was proper, dismissal of its 17200 claim was proper as well.); Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111465, at *59-60 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) (holding because plaintiff failed to establish actionable trade dress claims, plaintiffs common law unfair competition
5
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and section 17200 claims fail as well because they are predicated upon the same alleged acts of infringement). Here, Beats has not alleged any unlawful activity under common law unfair competition or section 17200 due to trade dress violations because Beats fails to allege any protectable trade dress. The Court should dismiss Beats fourth cause of action under section 17200 and fifth cause of action comprising common law unfair competition allegations. III. CONCLUSION Beats first, fourth, and fifth causes of action do not sufficiently put Yamaha on notice such that Yamaha can respond to Beats claims. This Court should dismiss these causes of action in their entirety.1

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4), Yamaha may bring this Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer, and does not need to respond to the other allegations in the Complaint at this time. See Zhixun Samuel Sun v. Rickenbacker Collections, No. 5:10-CV-1055 EJD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95429, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (requiring defendant to file an answer only after notice of the courts action on the partial motion to dismiss); U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-09517-ODW (RZ), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64029, at *21-22 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) (ruling on partial motion to dismiss and requiring defendant to file an answer to remaining claims within 14 days of ruling). To the extent an Answer is needed at this time, to avoid any perceived waiver, Yamaha hereby generally and expressly denies all allegations of the Complaint (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3)) and reserves the right to file an amended responsive pleading in which it will specifically deny certain allegations and assert additional defenses.

6
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-1 Filed 03/29/13 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated:

March 29, 2013

By: /s/ __Bita Rahebi______ ________ David L. Fehrman (CA SBN 87400) dfehrman@mofo.com Bita Rahebi (CA SBN 209351) brahebi@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 Jennifer Lee Taylor (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com Francis C. Ho (CA SBN 247426) fho@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant Yamaha Corporation of America

7
sf-3262241

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-2 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID L. FEHRMAN (CA SBN 87400) dfehrman@mofo.com BITA RAHEBI (CA SBN 209351) brahebi@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com FRANCIS C. HO (CA SBN 247426) fho@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. CV 13-00209-CJC-JPR [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICAS MOTION TO DISMISS Date: April 29, 2013 Time: 1:30 PM Place: Ct. Rm. 9B Judge: Hon. Cormac J. Carney

1
sf-3267012

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 12-2 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant Yamaha Corporation of America has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This motion to dismiss came on for hearing on April 29, 2013 at 1:30 PM. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiffs first cause of action (trade dress infringement and unfair

competition under the Lanham Act) is dismissed. 2) Plaintiffs fourth cause of action (violation of California Unfair

Practices Act) is dismissed. 3) Plaintiffs fifth cause of action (California common law trade dress

infringement and unfair competition) is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________

______________________________ Hon. Cormac J. Carney United States District Court Judge

2
sf-3267012

You might also like