Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180305_0000610.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:27:46+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Emerson Radio Corp. v. Emerson Quiet Kool Co. Ltd.
Emerson Radio Corp. v. Emerson Quiet Kool Co. Ltd.
EMERSON QUIET KOOL CO. LTD. and HOME EASY LTD., Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants Emerson Quiet Kool Co. Ltd. and Home Easy Ltd.'s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This opinion is issued without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief.” This short and plain statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The pleading standard under Rule 8 requires “more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Dillin v. Constr. & Turnaround Servs., LLC, No. 14-8124, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124873, at *7-8 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2015). “[A] complaint attacked by a . . . motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. But, conclusory or bare-bones allegations will not do. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). Iqbal held, “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 678 (internal citations omitted); see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009) (discussing the standard).
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims based on a 1983 assignment, which Defendants attach for the first time in their reply brief. (ECF No. 50-1 ¶ 2.) Defendants make a global argument that “the assignment precludes Plaintiff from enforcing any rights against Defendants” related to the “marks EMERSON QUIET KOOL and QUIET KOOL, the Emerson Radio ‘G Klef' mark (for air conditioners), and the associated good will.” (ECF No. 44-1 at 9.) However, the document only refers to the assignment of rights as it pertains to air conditioners, (ECF No. 50-1 ¶ 2); it does not assign any rights as it pertains to EQK's dehumidifiers, which are also a basis for Plaintiff's claims. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-37, 68, 88, 120.) At this point in the litigation, the Court must accept the allegations in the Complaint as true. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231. In doing so, this Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that it is the rightful owner of the EMERSON trademark and that it has the right to bring the instant infringement action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims must survive the instant motion to dismiss.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1331
 § 1391
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.