Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stat Ltd. v. Beard Head, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

October 28, 2014

STAT LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
BEARD HEAD, INC., et al., Defendants

As Corrected November 18, 2014.

For STAT Ltd., doing business as, Beardo, Plaintiff: Daniel Sage Ward, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ward & Ward PLLC, Washington, DC.

For Beard Head, Inc., Bearded Apparel LLC, David Stankunas, Defendants: Todd Lee Juneau, LEAD ATTORNEY, Juneau Partners IP Law Firm, Alexandria, VA.

For Beard Head, Inc., Counter Claimant: Todd Lee Juneau, Juneau Partners IP Law Firm, Alexandria, VA.

For STAT Ltd., Counter Defendant: Daniel Sage Ward, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ward & Ward PLLC, Washington, DC.

Page 635

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Henry E. Hudson, United States District Judge.

(Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)

What began as primarily a patent infringement action is now, in essence, a trademark and trade dress infringement action involving parties in the business of marketing and selling clothing products, primarily knitted beards.

The case is before the Court on the Beard Head Defendants' (" Defendants" ) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to each of Plaintiff Stat Ltd's (" Plaintiff') remaining claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Motion," ECF No. 65), filed on October 1, 2014. The pertinent issues have been fully briefed by the parties. The Court will dispense with oral argument because it would not aid in the decisional process. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed this action on November 13, 2013 (Complaint, ECF No. 1), alleging four causes of action: (1) Design Patent Infringement arising under the patent

Page 636

laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (2) Federal Unfair Competition and Trade Dress Infringement for Product Packaging under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Federal Unfair Competition and Trade Dress Infringement for Product Design under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (4) Common Law Trade Dress Infringement and Unfair Competition for both Product Packaging and Product Design. Defendants filed their Answer (Answer, ECF No. 11) on January 17, 2014, raising four counterclaims: (1) Antitrust violations under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; (2) Federal Trademark Infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1); (3) Federal Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (4) Federal Cybersquatting in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (" ACPA" ), 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(A). The Court has voluntarily dismissed both ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.