Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01202/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1202

BALDINO’S LOCK & KEY SERVICE, INC.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GOOGLE INC.; ZIPLOCAL, LP; JOHN DOES 1-25; GOOGLE 

INFORMATION, INC.,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SUPERMEDIA SALES, INC.; YELLOWBOOK INC., a division of 

Hibu, Inc.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00636-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 4, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald C. Holmes, DONALD C. HOLMES & ASSOCIATES, P.A., 

Greensboro, Maryland; Andrew C. Bisulca, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW C. 

BISULCA, P.C., Woodbridge, Virginia, for Appellant. Dennis J. 

Quinn, Kristine M. Ellison, CARR MALONEY P.C., Washington, D.C.; 

Appeal: 15-1202 Doc: 56 Filed: 12/04/2015 Pg: 1 of 5
2

Daryl L. Joseffer, Taylor T. Lankford, Carolyn M. Sweeney, KING 

& SPALDING LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kathleen E. McCarthy, KING & 

SPALDING, New York, New York, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1202 Doc: 56 Filed: 12/04/2015 Pg: 2 of 5
3

PER CURIAM:

Baldino’s Lock & Key Service, Inc. (Baldino’s) appeals the 

district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. We affirm. 

Baldino’s is a Virginia corporation and licensed locksmith 

that provides locksmith services in Virginia, Maryland and the 

District of Columbia. In its Second Amended Complaint, 

Baldino’s asserted that the Defendants, Google, Inc.,

YellowBook, Inc., and Ziplocal, LP, knowingly published the 

names, addresses and phone numbers of unlicensed locksmiths on 

their websites in order to gain advertising revenue. Baldino’s 

alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (2012), and the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) (2012). 

The district court granted the Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss. Of relevance to this appeal,* the court determined that 

Baldino’s had not shown that the Defendants had made a false or 

misleading description or representation of fact and, 

accordingly, had failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act. 

 * On appeal, Baldino’s has expressly abandoned both its 

claims against YellowBook and its RICO claims. 

Appeal: 15-1202 Doc: 56 Filed: 12/04/2015 Pg: 3 of 5
4

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an action 

for failure to state a claim. Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., 

Inc., 795 F.3d 442, 445-46 (4th Cir. 2015). To survive a Rule 

12(b)(6) dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We must accept as 

true the complaint’s factual allegations and draw all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Kensington 

Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th 

Cir. 2012).

The “Lanham Act creates a private right of action for 

corporate victims of ‘false or misleading’ descriptions or 

representations.” In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505, 514 (4th Cir. 

2015). To prevail on a Lanham Act claim, a plaintiff must 

establish that:

(1) the defendant made a false or misleading 

description of fact or representation of fact in a 

commercial advertisement about his own or another’s 

product; (2) the misrepresentation is material, in 

that it is likely to influence the purchasing 

decision; (3) the misrepresentation actually deceives 

or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment 

of its audience; (4) the defendant placed the false or 

misleading statement in interstate commerce; and 

(5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured 

as a result of the misrepresentation, either by direct 

diversion of sales or by a lessening of goodwill 

associated with its products.

Appeal: 15-1202 Doc: 56 Filed: 12/04/2015 Pg: 4 of 5
5

Design Resources, Inc. v. Leather Indus. of Am., 789 F.3d 495, 

501 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Here, the district court correctly determined that 

Baldino’s failed to show that the Defendants made any 

representations. Rather, the locksmiths who generated the 

information that appeared on Defendants’ websites are solely 

responsible for making any faulty or misleading representations 

or descriptions of fact. Accordingly, the district court did 

not err in dismissing Baldino’s Lanham Act claim under Rule 

12(b)(6). 

We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-1202 Doc: 56 Filed: 12/04/2015 Pg: 5 of 5