Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/241253095/The-Webb-Law-Firm-PLLC-v-the
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:17:07+00:00

Document:
Senju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Aurobindo Pharma et. al.
Plaintiff (referred to at times herein as Defendant or the Pennsylvania law firm).
Court DENIES AS MOOT this motion.
assumed, as they must be at this juncture, to be true.
Defendant is a corporate intellectual property law firm located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Defendant maintains that these marks are incontestable under federal trademark law.
None of the members of Defendants law firm bear the surname Webb.
the right to use the registered mark shall be subject to proof of infringement as defined in section 1114 of this title.
defenses to a registrants conclusive evidence assertion. 15 U.S.C. 1115(b)(19).
of various provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1111, et seq. and West Virginia state law.
for use in the category of legal services.
intended to achieve a reasonable and amicable resolution, Defendant then requested that Mr.
example, The Law Offices of Rusty Webb or Rusty Webb and Associates.
deciding Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings.
copy, counterfeit, or colorable imitation of Defendants mark under the Lanham Act. Id.
harassment and attorneys fees. Id.
F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999).
allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.
judgment on the pleadings is converted into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id.
(citing A.S. Abell Co. v. Baltimore Typographical Union, 338 F.2d 190, 193 (4th Cir.1964); Fed.
considers documents and facts of which it may take judicial notice. Id. (citing R.G. Fin. Corp. v.
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 24796, at *5, 1994 WL 489983 (4th Cir. Sept. 12, 1994) (unpublished)).
523, 526 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006)).
Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)).
in the Complaint and its exhibits, Defendants motion lacks merit.
of Defendants five arguments in support of its motion in turn.
unusual and confounding task of assessing the plausibility of defenses rather than claims.
beyond the pleadings to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. (citations omitted).
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Id.
Plaintiffs Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
declaratory judgment defendant rather than the declaratory judgment plaintiff.
against the declaratory judgment plaintiff.
against whom he brings his action could have asserted his own rights there); Cardtoons, L.C. v.
the defendant's anticipated suit) (citations omitted)).
Act. (ECF 7 at 1927.) Plaintiff has not challenged the plausibility of these asserted claims.
that Defendant has actually since filed in this case as counterclaims).
thus, dismissal of the Complaint is appropriate on this basis alone.
distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.
Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941).
involving a trademark dispute, courts apply a two-pronged test. Indium Corp. of America v.
(citations omitted). The controversy must have existed at the time the pleading was filed. Id.
denies that its cease-and-desist-letter threatened litigation.
cease-and-desist letter may be used as evidence that the infringement was willful.
its position was actual and genuine and not merely possible or remote.
brought it into adversarial conflict with Defendant.
southern West Virginia for twenty-six years; Mr. Webb adopted The Webb Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
to confuse consumers, an element of proof in infringement and false designation claims.
Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 313 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that claims under 15 U.S.C.
provide a factual basis to meet federal pleading standards is meritless.
the counterclaims asserted by Defendant. The Court disagrees.
a manner likely to confuse consumers.
(8) the quality of the defendants product; and (9) the sophistication of the consuming public.
likelihood of confusion analysis. Id. (citations omitted).
to market its legal services constitutes use of the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.
Plaintiff has plainly not conceded this important fact.
evidence that one consumer was actually confused about the legal services offered by the parties.
Such evidence, however, cuts both ways. On the one hand, it is evidence of actual confusion.
Courts role in resolving a motion for judgment on the pleadings to resolve this factual contest.
Rather, the Courts job at this juncture is to evaluate the sufficiency of the Complaints allegations.
parties law firms does not undermine the legal sufficiency of the Complaint.
all elements of Defendants claims.
mark claim alleged in Counterclaim IV. The Court disagrees.
likely to be damaged by such act.
distinctiveness of the famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)(B).
better left to a fair contest on the merits.
stated above, Defendants contention is unavailing.
judgment on the pleadings on the counterfeit claim.
Defendant cites Park N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985).
whether registrant has proved that a likelihood of consumer confusion exists.
marks protectibility and validity. See 15 U.S.C. 1115(b); Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc.
likelihood of confusion, a marks incontestable status entitles the mark to substantial protection.
Id. (citing Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 871 (2d Cir. 1986).
commerce as established in 15 U.S.C. 1115(b).
the mark. George & Co. LLC v. Imagination Entmt Ltd., 575 F.3d 383, 393 (4th Cir. 2009).
mark is merely descriptive and therefore invalid and undeserving of any protection.
(codified at 15 U.S.C. 1115(b)) (emphasis added).
130 F.3d at 92. The Fourth Circuit then noted other circuit precedent in accord with this rule.
consider those grounds when determining whether likelihood of confusion has been established)).
for judgment on the pleadings under this theory.
defenses 68, 1012, and 1518 from Plaintiffs answer to Defendants counterclaims.
MOOT Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF 28].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.