Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07274/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07274-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGALFORCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07274-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND; CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Before the Court is defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.'s ("LegalZoom") motion, filed 

December 11, 2018, to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. 

("Trademarkia")1 has filed opposition, to which LegalZoom has replied. Having read and 

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules 

as follows.2

BACKGROUND

Trademarkia alleges it operates Trademarkia.com, a website on which it offers 

"trademark watch and monitoring services," that it has registered the mark 

"Trademarkia," and that is in the process of registering the mark 

"LegalForceTrademarkia." (See Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8, 26.) Trademarkia further alleges that 

LegalZoom operates the website LegalZoom.com on which it also offers "trademark 

watch and monitoring services," as well as other services not offered by Trademarkia. 

 

1Plaintiff, both in its complaint and its opposition to the instant motion, refers to 

itself as "Trademarkia," a mark it states it uses to conduct business.

2By order filed February 25, 2019, the Court took the matter under submission.

Case 3:18-cv-07274-MMC Document 57 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(See Compl. ¶ 3.) According to Trademarkia, LegalZoom purchased the domain name

"LegalZoomTrademarkia.com" in 2012 and starting using it in April 2014, at which time it 

"began diverting traffic from LegalZoomTrademarkia.com to its website LegalZoom.com" 

(see Compl. ¶ 23), which it continued to do until it was "caught" in April 2018 (see Compl. 

¶ 23).3

Based on the above allegations, Trademarkia asserts four causes of action, 

specifically, a First Claim for Relief, titled "Trademark Infringement[;] 15 U.S.C. § 1114," a

Second Claim for Relief, titled "Trademark Infringement[;] 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)," a Third 

Claim for Relief, titled "Cyberpiracy in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)," and a Fourth 

Claim for Relief, titled "Trademark Infringement[;] California Common Law."

DISCUSSION

LegalZoom contends Trademarkia's claims are subject to dismissal for lack of 

standing, in that, according to LegalZoom, Trademarkia has not adequately alleged it has 

been injured by LegalZoom's use of the domain name LegalZoomTrademarkia.com.

A plaintiff has standing "only when the plaintiff himself has suffered some 

threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action." See Warth v. 

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Allegations 

that a plaintiff has, as a result of a competitor's actions, suffered lost sales and damage 

to its business reputation suffice to "give it standing under Article III" to challenge such 

competitor's actions. See Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 

118, 125 (2014) (finding "lost sales" and "damage to . . . business reputation" sufficient to 

plead standing for Lanham Act claims). In determining whether a plaintiff has sufficiently 

alleged standing, however, a court does not "assume the truth of legal conclusions 

merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations." See Warren v. Fox 

Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation and 

 

3Trademarkia alleges it first discovered the "infringing use" in April 2018, "when 

counsel stumbled upon it through complex forensics analysis of LegalZoom's activities 

when researching [claims asserted in another case]." (See Compl. ¶ 44.)

Case 3:18-cv-07274-MMC Document 57 Filed 03/13/19 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

citation omitted).

Here, Trademarkia alleges that, as a result of LegalZoom's "infringing conduct," it 

has "suffered lost revenue and market share, reduced asset value[,] and increased 

advertising costs" (see Compl. ¶ 19), as well as damage to its "business, reputation, and 

goodwill" (see Compl. ¶ 66). As LegalZoom points out, such allegations are conclusory 

in nature.

In its opposition, Trademarkia relies on the following factual allegation to provide 

the necessary factual support: "Trademarkia's independent revenue for trademark watch 

and monitoring services has dropped from the high of approximately $1,545,775.00 in 

2012[,] when it was growing at a compounded annual growth rate of over 30%, down to 

just $455.016.00 in 2017." (See Compl. ¶ 19.) As noted, however, Trademarkia alleges 

LegalZoom did not use the domain name LegalZoomTrademarkia.com until April 2014

(see Compl. ¶ 23), and, consequently, Trademarkia's losses from 2012 through March 

2014 cannot be the result of such use. Although, as Trademarkia notes, the allegation on 

which it relies includes a time period during which LegalZoom assertedly was using the 

challenged domain name, Trademarkia has failed to allege any facts to support a finding 

that whatever loss of revenue it experienced beginning in April 2014 was the result of 

LegalZoom's use of the challenged domain name, as opposed to the cause or causes for 

the losses it allegedly experienced prior to that time.

Accordingly, Trademarkia's allegations fail to sufficiently plead injury. See

Ashcraft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (holding factual allegations that fail to

"nudge[ ] [a claim] across the line from conceivable to plausible" insufficient to support 

claim) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

4

The Court will, however, afford Trademarkia leave to amend to add, if it can do so, 

"particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of [its] standing." See Warth, 422 

 

4

In light of this finding, the Court does not consider herein LegalZoom's additional 

arguments in support of dismissal.

Case 3:18-cv-07274-MMC Document 57 Filed 03/13/19 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S. at 501 (holding, where defendant successfully challenges plaintiff's standing at 

pleading stage, district courts ordinarily should afford plaintiff leave to amend).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, LegalZoom's motion to dismiss is hereby 

GRANTED, and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED, with leave to amend.

5

 Any such 

amended complaint shall be filed no later than April 5, 2019.

Lastly, in light of the dismissal of the complaint, the Case Management 

Conference is hereby CONTINUED from March 22, 2019, to June 14, 2019, at 10:30 

a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than June 7, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2019

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

5

In so amending, Trademarkia is not limited to adding factual allegations to support 

a finding that it has been injured; it may add any other factual allegations it believes 

support its existing claims and/or amend existing allegations. (See, e.g., Pl.'s Opp. at 

12:3-9 (identifying typographical error in complaint); id. at 14:28–15:1 (clarifying reason 

for allegations in two challenged paragraphs).)

Case 3:18-cv-07274-MMC Document 57 Filed 03/13/19 Page 4 of 4