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