Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Bosley Inc
2:23-cv-01031
W.D. Wash.Oct 22, 2024Background
- Advanced Hair Restoration LLC (AHR) holds registered and common law trademarks related to hair restoration services.
- AHR alleges that Bosley Inc., Hair Club for Men, and Aderans Co., Ltd. used phrases in advertising that are substantially similar to AHR’s trademarks, constituting various trademark infringements.
- AHR filed several claims including consumer protection violations, unfair competition, federal and state anti-dilution, trademark infringement, and counterfeiting.
- Bosley and Hair Club moved to dismiss certain claims for failure to state a claim and requested more specificity in others.
- The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, with motions addressed collectively due to overlapping arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of anti-dilution claims | Marks are famous; more specifics unnecessary at this stage | AHR failed to plausibly allege marks are famous or distinctive | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| Sufficiency of counterfeiting claim | Keyword and webpage uses support claim | AHR did not allege use of identical marks; keywords insufficient | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| Lack of clarity in pleading (12(e)) | Complaint is sufficiently clear for Defendants to answer | Claims and intent are too ambiguous; need a more definite statement | Denied; complaint intelligible |
| Specificity of marks in other claims | Trademarks and accused marks are identified | SAC lacks detail on which actions/trademarks form basis of claims | Denied; complaint sufficiently clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets the plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (clarifies the standards for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) (articulates criteria for "famous" marks in dilution claims)
- Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2008) (analyzes standards for trademark fame in dilution claims)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (counterfeiting claim elements)