Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling USA, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Solid 21, Inc. (Solid 21) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its claims against Breitling USA, Inc. and Breitling SA (collectively, Breitling) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

The district court erred in dismissing Solid 21’s claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Solid 21 has alleged in its complaint and submitted supporting documentation indicating that its “Red Gold” mark is registered in accordance with the Lanham Act. Solid 21’s federal registration of its trademark constitutes prima facie evidence of the mark’s validity, 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (b), entitles Solid 21 to a “strong presumption” that the mark is not generic, Zobmondo Entm’t, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596, 604 (9th Cir.2005)), and shifts the burden to Brei-tling to show “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the mark is not protectable, id. at 1114 (citing Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 783 (9th Cir.2002); Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enters.,…