Brixton Llc V Wooden Bay Co Llc Dba Bronxton

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Brixton LLC owns three registered trademarks (Nos. 6,497,912; 6,497,912; and 7,720,726) for clothing, headwear, and accessories, registered between July 13, 2021, and March 11, 2025. Defendant Wooden Bay Co. LLC, d/b/a Bronxton, is accused of trademark infringement by using a logo with a similar font and shield shape as Brixton's marks to promote and sell goods in the same class. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding Brixton's allegations of likelihood of confusion plausible under Rule 12(b)(6), but granted the motion to strike Brixton's request for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). Key factors included the parties' overlapping target audiences, similar product offerings, and Brixton's claims of the defendant's history of copying and intent to trade on goodwill.

Issues

  • Whether Plaintiff's trademark infringement claim states a plausible claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), including analysis of the likelihood of confusion between the Brixton Marks and the Bronxton Mark, similarity of fonts and shield designs, proximity of goods, and defendant's intent.
  • Whether Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's request for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) should be granted, given Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion.

Holdings

  • The court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's trademark infringement claim, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged a likelihood of confusion between the Brixton Marks and the Bronxton Mark. The court concluded that the plaintiff's allegations regarding similar font, shield design, overlapping goods, and defendant's intent to trade on goodwill were sufficient to meet the plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6).
  • The court granted the motion to strike Plaintiff's request for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) because Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to strike this specific request. The court found no basis to challenge the motion to strike this particular claim for relief.

Remedies

  • The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's trademark infringement claim, finding sufficient allegations of likelihood of confusion to support a plausible claim.
  • The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's request for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).

Legal Principles

The court applied the legal standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions, requiring a complaint to state a claim that is facially plausible. Under this standard, the plaintiff must allege sufficient factual matter to allow a reasonable inference of liability, not just a sheer possibility of misconduct. The court also emphasized that dismissal of trademark disputes at the pleading stage is generally disfavored due to the need for a full record to assess likelihood of confusion.

Precedent Name

  • Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc.
  • Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc.
  • AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats
  • Zero Motorcycles, Inc. v. Zero Labs Grp., LLC
  • Off. Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss
  • Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps
  • Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp.
  • Pinterest Inc. v. Pintrips Inc.
  • E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal
  • Trader Joe's Co. v. Trader Joe's United
  • Good Clean Love, Inc. v. Audacious Beauty, LLC
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

Cited Statute

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)

Judge Name

Janis L. Sammartino

Passage Text

  • 'Because a careful assessment of the pertinent factors that go into determining likelihood of confusion usually requires a full record, dismissal of trademark disputes at the pleading stage is generally disfavored.' Trader Joe's Co v. Trader Joe's United, 150 F.4th 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps, 144 F.4th 1137, 1167 (9th Cir. 2025)).
  • Defendant argues that 'there are no demonstrated instances of confusion even when the products were sold in the exact same stores,' and, thus, the proximity of the goods weighs against confusion. Id. at 7. The Court finds Plaintiff's allegations that the Parties 'sell the same class of goods ... to the same target audience' sufficient to show the proximity of the goods.
  • Plaintiff alleges it has 'expended substantial sums of money and resources in the promotion of its products using the Brixton Marks,' and thus, the Brixton Marks 'are now known to be connected with Plaintiff' and 'have become an asset of incalculable value as a symbol of Plaintiff's business and its quality products.' Compl. ¶ 17. The Brixton Marks and the Bronxton Mark 'use[] a similar font ... and use[] a shield of the same shape,' and are used 'to promote and sell goods of the same class of goods ...' Id. ¶ 14.