Aim 4 Pie LLC v. School Health Corporation
4:24-cv-01376
N.D. Ala.Jul 2, 2025Background
- Aim 4 Pie LLC, a seller of educational games identified by the federally registered mark “AIM 4 PIE,” sued School Health Corporation after a business relationship ended.
- School Health formerly sold Aim 4 Pie products, but afterward, marketed a competing product (BRAINball) with an ad displaying foam balls spelling “pie.”
- Aim 4 Pie did not authorize use of its mark and sent cease-and-desist letters when the image appeared; School Health removed the image but did not respond.
- Aim 4 Pie brought claims for trademark infringement and dilution, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- School Health moved to dismiss both claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court addressed the sufficiency of the pleaded facts as to both claims, treating all facts in Aim 4 Pie’s complaint as true at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark Infringement | School Health’s use of "pie" creates consumer confusion | Only used “pie” (a common word), not the “AIM 4 PIE” mark; no facts showing likely confusion | Dismissed without prejudice for insufficient factual allegations |
| Trademark Dilution | BRAINball ad using “pie” diluted the AIM 4 PIE trademark | AIM 4 PIE not famous; no facts about fame, recognition, or dilution | Dismissed without prejudice; claim unsupported, considered abandoned |
| Leave to Amend | Silent on amendment | Futile to allow amendment | Court allows repleading as amendment would not necessarily be futile |
| Injunctive & Monetary Relief | Sought damages and injunctions | N/A — challenged legal sufficiency | Not addressed due to dismissal of claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement of factual allegations above speculative level for Rule 12(b)(6))
- John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966 (11th Cir. 1983) (test for likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act)
- Crowder v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 963 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2020) (court takes pleaded facts as true on motion to dismiss)
- Jones v. Bank of Am. N.A., 564 Fed. Appx. 432 (11th Cir. 2014) (claim considered abandoned if not addressed in opposition to motion to dismiss)