Spy Optic, Inc. v. Alibaba.com, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Reidconnell, J.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [31]
I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendant Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Plaintiff Spy Optic, Inc. (“Plaintiff’). (Dkt. No. 31.) Defendant seeks to dismiss all claims in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action: (1) direct and contributory trademark infringement and counterfeiting, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 (1), 1116(d), and 1117(b) and (c); (2) false advertising, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1)(A) and (B); (3) unfair competition and false designation of origin, according to 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a); (4) direct and contributory common law trademark infringement, and (5) unfair competition, under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, 17500, et seq. and California common law. (Dkt. No. 20.) After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant motion, the Court deems this matter ap *760 propriate for resolution without oral argument of counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.