Planet Drum Foundation v. Hart, 3:17-cv-02676

Planet Drum Foundation owns the PLANET DRUM trademark (registered 1996) and alleges continuous use since 1973 in ecology-related publications and services.
Mickey Hart and 360° Productions (360) used "Planet Drum" for a musical group and albums; 360 and Planet Drum Foundation entered a 1998 license granting an exclusive license to musical groups, with quality-control provisions tied to Hart's control of 360.
360 made royalty payments through June 1999; Planet Drum Foundation terminated the license in June 2000 for nonpayment and notified that future uses would require re-licensing.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants continued some uses (album/book sales) and planned a 2016–2017 re-release of the PLANET DRUM album without authorization, prompting suit for trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) and false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing laches (17-year delay), naked licensing (failure to police quality), and failure to plead likelihood of confusion; the court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Laches	Delay was excusable; suit timely for alleged ongoing/unlawful uses and willfulness	Plaintiff slept on rights ~17 years; presumption of laches and prejudice	Denied — factual questions (knowledge date, reasonableness, prejudice, willfulness) make dismissal premature
Naked licensing	Licensed with quality-control terms; did not abandon mark; informal control occurred	Plaintiff failed to police post-license uses, amounting to naked licensing and forfeiture of rights	Denied — complaint does not show as a matter of law that mark was abandoned; quality control allegations suffice at pleading stage
Likelihood of confusion	Alleged unauthorized identical use of PLANET DRUM creates confusion; Rule 8 notice pleading met	Goods/services differ, no actual confusion, different channels, no expansion into music	Denied — identical marks alleged; Sleekcraft factors are fact-specific and dismissal inappropriate at pleading stage
Rule 12(b)(6) pleading sufficiency	Allegations state claims under Lanham Act	Defendants argue legal defenses defeat claims on face of complaint	Denied — factual nature of defenses (laches, naked license, Sleekcraft factors) precludes dismissal now

AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (establishes eight-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) (laches is a defense to Lanham Act claims; outlines analysis)
Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) (willful infringement can defeat laches; discusses laches framework)
FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network, 626 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses naked licensing and standard for forfeiture)
Barcamerica Intern. USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002) (naked licensing precedents and stringent standard)
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussion of likelihood-of-confusion and flexible application of Sleekcraft factors)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard — plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (limits on accepting legal conclusions as facts in pleadings)