Brand Ventures, Inc. v. TAC5, LLC, 6:17-cv-01983

Brand Ventures, an e-commerce/lead-generation company, owns registered trademarks 1TAC and 1TAC TACTICAL OUTFITTERS (tactical gear) and uses 1HYDRO for water purifiers; it also holds registered copyrights in website content.
Defendants TAC5, NEG, and Johnathan Curtis began selling near-identical products under TAC5 and HYDRO5, using a TAC5 website that allegedly copied Brand Ventures’ website source code, images, text, graphics, and shopping guide.
Brand Ventures filed a verified complaint asserting: Count I (copyright infringement), Count II (trademark infringement), Count III (Lanham Act unfair competition), and Count IV (unjust enrichment under Florida law).
Curtis moved to dismiss all claims against him for failure to plead individual liability and argued Count IV was barred by Florida LLC immunity statutes for members/managers.
The Court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard and denied Curtis’s motion, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged Curtis’s personal participation/control as an officer/owner to support individual liability for Counts I–III and declining to dismiss Count IV on statutory-immunity grounds at the pleading stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Curtis can be held individually liable for copyright, trademark, and Lanham Act claims	Complaint alleges Curtis is an officer/manager/owner who ordered, directed, ratified, and endorsed the infringing activities; therefore individual liability (direct, contributory, vicarious) is plausible	Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to impose individual liability on Curtis	Denied — Complaint pleads sufficient factual matter to allow inference Curtis personally participated in and controlled the infringing conduct, so Counts I–III survive 12(b)(6)
Whether Count IV (unjust enrichment) must be dismissed because Florida LLC statutes shield members/managers from personal liability	Count IV is plausibly pleaded and arises from same factual predicate as federal claims; exceptions to LLC immunity may apply	Fla. Stat. §§ 605.0304 and 605.04093 bar personal liability of LLC members/managers for company acts	Denied — Court refuses to resolve statutory-immunity defense on the pleadings given ambiguities and exceptions; Count IV survives at this stage

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual content must permit reasonable inference of liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1994) (pleadings viewed in plaintiff's favor on motions to dismiss)
Babbit Elecs., Inc. v. Dynascan Corp., 38 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1994) (corporate officers personally liable when they direct or are the moving force behind infringement)
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Assoc. Tel. Dir. Publishers, 756 F.2d 801 (11th Cir. 1985) (individuals with supervisory ability and financial interest, or personal participation, can be held personally liable for infringement)
Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (court accepts complaint allegations as true on motions to dismiss)
United States v. Baxtern Int’l, Inc., 345 F.3d 866 (11th Cir. 2003) (pleaders get extra leeway where information is under defendant's control)
Schojan v. Papa John’s Int’l, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (plaintiffs need not anticipate affirmative defenses in pleadings)