A court need not “accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts” or “accept as true 2 unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his entitle to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl.
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim “it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of North Carolina v.
Motion to Dismiss A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. Lastly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will be denied because Defendant’s counterclaims are not frivolous. Because genuine issues of material fact remain and additional discovery would aid in resolving such issues, NDL’s motion for summary judgment is premature and will be denied. That is not the purpose of a declaratory judgment, and thus the declaratory judgment claims will be dismissed. Defendant’s declaratory judgment counterclaims are merely defenses masquerading as counterclaims they ask the Court to essentially rule in Defendant’s favor on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant’s declaratory judgment counterclaims, however, will be dismissed as duplicative. Defendant’s counterclaims of trademark infringement and unfair completion will be retained because they state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the pleadings and the applicable case law, the motions to dismiss will be denied in part and granted in part. Lastly, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant. NDL’s motion was also styled as a 1 motion for summary judgment.
This matter is before the Court upon NDL’s and Plaintiff’s motions to dismiss all counterclaims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In addition, Defendant seeks a declaratory judgment that its actions were not defamatory, libelous, or unfairly competitive, as well as an injunction prohibiting NDL from using “Cashflow” as the name of its software. § 1125(a), common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. Defendant’s counterclaim alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. (“NDL”), which is owned by Plaintiff, as counter defendants. The counterclaim named Plaintiff and NDL, Inc. Defendant filed an Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaim to Plaintiff’s Complaint. This case arises out of the use of the term “Cashflow” in the title of a mobile phone application created by Plaintiff, which Defendant believes violates one or more of its trademarks. (“Defendant”), as well as damages “in excess of $150,000” based upon claims of defamation, libel per se, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.
CASHFLOW TECHNOLOGIES INC PRO
William Tyler (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, initiated this case, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for allegations of trademark infringement by Cashflow Technologies, Inc. CASHFLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., JUDGE NORMAN K.
6:16-CV-00038 WILLIAM TYLER, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION v. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG DIVISION CASE NO.
0 kommentar(er)
