United States District Court, D. Arizona
MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
28). For the following reasons, the motion is
Century International Arms, Inc. (“Century”) is a
firearms manufacturer that recently purchased another arms
manufacturer, U.S. Palm, LLC (“Palm”). Before it
was purchased by Century, U.S. Palm sold two products at
issue here: a 30-round ammunition storage and feeding device
(“the Magazine”), and a grip configured to mount
on AK-47 rifles (“the Grip.”). To produce these
items, U.S. Palm contracted with Molded Devices, Inc.
(“Molded Devices”) to manufacture the Magazine
and Grip according to U.S. Palm's design.
XTech Tactical, LLC (“XTech”) is another arms
manufacturer and sales company. Defendant Jeremy Deadman is
the principal owner and Director of Sales and Marketing at
XTech, as well as the Director of Business Development at
Modeled Devices. (Doc. 24 at 5-6).
to Century's complaint, XTech-without U.S. Palm's
consent-offered nearly identical products to the Magazine and
Grip for sale at a wholesale show labeled as XTech Products.
In a spreadsheet, these two products are described as
“MAG47 - (Revised former U.S. Palm AK30)” and
“Grip 37 - (Former U.S. Palm AKBG).” (Doc. 25,
Ex. A). After discovering this, Century filed this lawsuit
alleging violations of the Lanham Act and Arizona Unfair
now move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must
contain more than "labels and conclusions" or a
"formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action"; it must contain factual allegations sufficient
to "raise a right to relief above the speculative
level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). While “a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations . . . it must plead enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534
F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard
"asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability,
it 'stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief.'"
Id. (internal citations omitted) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), "[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken
as true and construed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party." Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d
1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996). “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only give the defendant[s] fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys.
LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir. 2008).
Trade Dress Claim
dress refers generally to the total image, design, and
appearance of a product and may include features such as
size, shape, color, color combinations, texture or
graphics.” Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters,
Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). To properly plead a
trade dress claim, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing (1) a
likelihood of confusion, (2) secondary meaning, and (3)
non-functionality. Id. at 1258. “If a
plaintiff has used a mark to identify its goods and if the
plaintiff satisfies the three elements discussed above, then
the plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim for infringement
under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”
Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. E & J Gallo
Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 1998).