Gabb Wireless v. Troomi Wireless, 2:21-cv-00253

Gabb Wireless previously sued for Lanham Act trademark infringement; the court dismissed that claim in Jan. 2022 for lack of a protectable interest in the mark "Troomi."
Amended complaint alleges Brady (former EKR employee/president) and EKR created confidential name lists for Tyndale in late 2018 that included "Troomi;" Gabb paid for that work.
Gabb alleges Brady accessed and deleted the December 2018 Google Doc containing "Troomi," then Brady and Preece applied to register "Troomi" on May 5, 2020, swearing exclusive entitlement; the USPTO later issued the registration.
Gabb asserts Defendants committed fraud on the USPTO by falsely claiming exclusive rights and seeks cancellation of the registration and unjust enrichment (including $5M and a constructive trust).
Court ruled on Rule 12(b)(6) motion: trademark-registration cancellation claim dismissed with prejudice; unjust enrichment claim survives the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud-based cancellation of USPTO registration	Gabb: Brady/Preece swore they alone could use "Troomi" though Brady had covenanted to protect EKR/Gabb's confidential name, so the oath was fraudulent.	Defs: Gabb never had superior trademark rights or prior commercial use of "Troomi," so no falsehood or intent to deceive occurred.	Dismissed with prejudice — Gabb failed to plead superior legal rights/prior use required to show fraud on the PTO.
Unjust enrichment for misappropriation of the name "Troomi"	Gabb: It paid for and owned confidential information (the name); Defendants used that info to their benefit without payment; restitution is equitable.	Defs: Claim collapses because Gabb lacked trademark ownership and/or an enforceable contract may govern the dispute (which can preclude quasi-contract relief).	Motion to dismiss denied — Gabb plausibly alleged benefit conferred, defendant awareness, and inequity; merits and contract issues remain for later resolution.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; courts accept well-pled facts and reject legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (standing and grounds for cancellation of trademark registration)
In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (fraud-on-the-PTO requires knowing, material misrepresentation with intent to deceive)
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Nutraceutical Corp., 835 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2016) (trademark ownership derives from prior appropriation and commercial use)
Threeline Imports, Inc. v. Vernikov, 239 F. Supp. 3d 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (priority-of-use test for trademark ownership)
Emergency Physicians Integrated Care v. Salt Lake Cnty., 167 P.3d 1080 (Utah 2007) (elements of unjust enrichment under Utah law)
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where amendment would be futile)