Purely Driven Products, LLC v. Chillovino, LLC

ORDER

The matter before the Court is Defendants Chillovino, LLC, Cigdem Harms, and Microtex Global Manufacturing (collectively, “Defendants’”) Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) (the “Motion”). 1 (Dkt. No. 21.)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs applied to register their CHILLAVINO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office *1018 (“USPTO”) on June 5, 2015. (FAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs’ mark was published for opposition by the USPTO on November 11, 2014, and is currently being opposed by Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) seeks: (1) declaratory judgment of no trademark infringement or unfair competition; and (2) declaratory judgment of Plaintiffs’ right to use and register the mark CHILLAVINO on goods listed in its federal trademark application. (Dkt. No. 12.)

II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW

A complaint may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack “may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are…