Dadbod Apparel LLC v. Hildawn Design LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 30, 20242:24-cv-00188California4,399 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 (“Dadbod”) brings the present suit alleging that Defendants Hildawn Design LLC (“Hildawn”) and Hilary D. Wertin misused trademarks to interfere with Plaintiff’s sale of various goods. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants utilized their ownership of the “GIRLDAD” trademark to initiate takedown actions against several of Plaintiff’s products on online retailers Amazon and Etsy despite those products not infringing on Defendants’ trademark. Defendants now bring a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. 28 …

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.