NEW ORLEANS – An ongoing trademark lawsuit resulted in a group of defendants' motion to dismiss getting denied on May 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
E-Z Pick, Inc. filed the motion for itself and a group of consolidated defendants in Sream, Inc.’s trademark and counterfeiting infringement lawsuit against it. Sream also sued for false designation of origin and unfair competition. It said it has the exclusive license to use the “RooR” trademark, owned by Martin Birzle.
The lawsuit also states that Sream has the authority to enforce for the RooR marks in the U.S. Sream said the defendants sold counterfeit merchandise that used the RooR mark for four days in August 2016.
It was noted RooR International BV was later added as a plaintiff and owner of the RooR trademarks.
U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan
In denying the motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan pointed out that the amended complaint the plaintiffs filed is relevant to the original lawsuit.
“The claims of RooR International BV arise out of the same conduct, transaction and occurrence as the claims asserted by Sream in the original complaint,” said the court. “Both the factual allegations and causes of action now asserted by RooR International BV are largely identical to those originally asserted by Sream.”
Because the new complaint does not add any further information or allegations, other than adding RooR International BV as a plaintiff, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
It also added that the plaintiffs are not required to file a motion to amend the judgment. While the defendants said that since the court already dismissed Sream’s claim, RooR could not file another one without submitting a motion to amend the judgment. But the court disagreed. It pointed out that the plaintiffs already asked for leave before the court dismissed the case previously.
In that instance, the court gave Sream leave to file amended complaints while it also dismissed only one of Sream’s claims with prejudice. Considering this, the court said the plaintiffs do not have to file a motion to amend.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, stating that Sream does not have standing. While that was pending, Sream asked the court for leave to file an amended complaint and include RooR International BV as a co-plaintiff. While the court dismissed the claim, it also gave Sream leave to file an amended complaint.
Now, the complaints said RooR International BV owns the RooR trademarks and has “federal statutory and common law rights to the RooR trademark,” according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs insist RooR International BV has proper standing in the claims.
The defendants filed yet another motion to dismiss, and this time it was denied.