BuzzBallz, LLC v. MPL Brands NV, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 2, 20245:24-cv-04004California5,333 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

BuzzBallz filed its complaint on September 15, 2023, in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). (Compl., Dkt. 1). BuzzBallz alleges that Patco’s Big Sipz product infringes BuzzBallz’s trademark and trade dress rights and that Patco is unfairly competing with BuzzBallz. (See Am. Compl., Dkt. 10). BuzzBallz brings the following claims: (1) trademark infringement under the Lanham Act; (2) false designation of origin under the Lanham Act; (3) trademark dilution under the Lanham Act; (4) common law trademark infringement under Texas

1 Patco has also filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 11). Because the Court finds that transfer is warranted in this case, the Court does not address Patco’s motion to dismiss. See GHJ Holdings, Inc. v. Suncast Corp., No. 5:11-CV-22, 2011 WL 13223646, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2011) (finding that generally courts should resolve merits issues only after venue is settled). law; (5) unfair competition by misappropriation under Texas law; and (6) trademark dilution under Texas law. (See id. at 23–30). In its original complaint, BuzzBallz also brought a claim for patent infringement, alleging infringement of U.S.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.