Pinterest Inc. v. Pintrips Inc.
15 F. Supp. 3d 992
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Pinterest operates an online bookmarking/social platform where users "pin" content and uses terms like “pin,” “Pin It,” and the mark “Pinterest.” Pinterest alleges wide consumer recognition and owns a federal registration for "Pinterest."
- Pintrips is a travel-focused online service founded after Pinterest that also uses a "pin" bookmarking button and the name "Pintrips."
- Pinterest sued Pintrips asserting federal and state claims: trademark infringement (Lanham Act § 32), false designation (§ 43(a)), dilution (§ 43(c)), California unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), and California trademark infringement (§ 14257).
- Pintrips moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), principally arguing the term "pin" is generic (thus unprotectable) and Pinterest cannot claim exclusivity.
- The parties submitted requests for judicial notice; the court limited judicial notice to ministerial USPTO filing dates and rejected judicial notice of third‑party website uses to prove genericness.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding genericness and ownership/priority are fact questions generally unsuitable for resolution at the pleading stage and that several claims rest on Pinterest’s registered "Pinterest" mark regardless of the protectability of "pin."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "pin" is a protectable trademark (generic vs. descriptive/suggestive) | "Pin" is suggestive or descriptive with secondary meaning based on Pinterest's pioneering use and consumer association | "Pin" is generic/functional (a common verb for bookmarking) and cannot identify source | Court: Genericness is a fact-intensive inquiry; cannot resolve on 12(b)(6); denial of dismissal |
| Whether the court may take judicial notice of third‑party online uses to show genericness | N/A (challenged defendant’s evidence) | Seeks judicial notice of screenshots and web printouts to prove genericness | Court: Denied for purpose of proving genericness; USPTO filings only noticed for filing dates |
| Whether Pinterest has priority/seniority of use in the "pin" mark | Alleges it pioneered "pin" usage in social bookmarking and obtained fame before Pintrips | Contends Pintrips or others are senior users; ownership requires priority | Court: Priority is a factual question; complaint plausibly alleges seniority—cannot decide on dismissal |
| Whether some claims survive even if "pin" is unprotectable | Asserts protection in both "pin" and the registered "Pinterest" mark; claims invoke both theories | Argues all claims depend on protectability of "pin" | Court: Several claims (e.g., infringement, dilution, Cal. § 14257) rest on the registered "Pinterest" mark or other theories, so dismissal is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility/Twombly standard for complaints)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (distinctiveness categories and inherent protection)
- Zobmondo Entm’t, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108 (distinctiveness/genericness as factual question)
- Yellow Cab Co. v. Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, Inc., 419 F.3d 925 (consumer understanding for genericness inquiry)
- KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596 (generic marks identify product, not source)
- Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 (priority of use governs trademark ownership)
- Toho Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 645 F.2d 788 (dismissal appropriate where no conceivable likelihood of confusion as a matter of law)