Dadbod Apparel LLC v. Hildawn Design LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 20252:24-cv-00188California5,381 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DADBOD APPAREL LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00188-DJC-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER HILDAWN DESIGN LLC, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Dadbod Apparel LLC brings the present suit alleging that Defendants Hildawn Design LLC and Hilary D. Wertin misused trademarks owned by Defendants to interfere with Plaintiff’s sale of various goods on online platforms. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants utilized their “GIRLDAD” trademark to initiate takedown actions against several of Plaintiff’s products on third-party marketplaces Amazon and Etsy despite the fact that Plaintiff’s products did not infringe on Defendants’ trademark. The Court previously granted Defendants’ first motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend its complaint. (MTD Order (ECF No. 20).) Plaintiff now filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC” (ECF No. 21)) and Defendants are again seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 27 …

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.