1:20-cv-02550
N.D. Ill.Aug 14, 2020Background
- Vera Bradley, owner of numerous federal trademark registrations (25) and over 1,000 copyright registrations for patterns/designs, sued seven individuals for selling counterfeit Vera Bradley goods online and importing counterfeits from China.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants sold counterfeits via eBay, Facebook, Mercari, and Poshmark; Vera Bradley used eBay’s VeRO program to take down hundreds of counterfeit listings tied to defendants’ seller accounts.
- U.S. Customs seized shipments of alleged counterfeit Vera Bradley products sent to defendants Aixin Li, Kevin Lu, and Xia Lu in 2015 and 2018.
- Prior conduct includes Xia Lu selling counterfeits at a brick-and-mortar store (Mint Boutique) and later from a residence; Vera Bradley had previously sent a cease-and-desist to Mint Boutique.
- Vera Bradley’s complaint attached trademark and copyright registration certificates and identified specific counterfeit listings and seller accounts allegedly linked to each defendant.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to (1) distinguish which allegations applied to which defendant and (2) sufficiently identify which registered marks/copyrights were infringed by which products.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint sufficiently identifies each defendant's conduct | Vera Bradley alleges detailed facts linking specific seller accounts, seized shipments, and prior sales to each defendant | Complaint blurs identities; defendants cannot tell which allegations apply to them | Court: complaint contains detailed, defendant-specific allegations; denial of dismissal on this ground |
| Whether complaint links specific registrations to specific counterfeit goods | Plaintiff attached trademark and copyright registrations and described the infringing products and listings | Plaintiff failed to tie particular registrations to particular counterfeit items with required specificity | Court: attachments and factual allegations adequately identify the registrations and infringing products under Twombly/Iqbal; denial of dismissal |
| Pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review | Plaintiff relies on Twombly/Iqbal and factual context to show plausibility | Defendants argue plaintiff must provide more exact linking of registrations to items | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal, accepted well-pleaded facts as true, found plausibility, denied motion |
| Request for attorney's fees by plaintiff | Vera Bradley sought fees | Defendants opposed | Court denied plaintiff's request for attorney's fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (motions to dismiss test complaint sufficiency, not merits)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plaintiff must plead facts showing a plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility inquiry is context-specific and guides Rule 12(b)(6) review)