Vicious Brands, Inc. v. Face Co., LLC

Background

Vicious Brands, Inc., doing business as Saints & Sinners, sued Face Co., LLC, Skin Saint, LLC, and Holly Cutler. The First Amended Complaint asserted six claims: trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; unfair competition and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); California statutory unfair competition; common-law trademark infringement; and common-law unfair competition.

Vicious Brands alleged that it had sold haircare products since 2016 under the Saints & Sinners name and a mark containing two horizontally conjoined S's. It alleged that the defendants sold skincare products and beauty consultation services under the Skin Saint name and a mark containing two vertically conjoined S's. Vicious Brands also alleged similarities in the parties' website styling, including use of the same “Philosopher” font, and alleged that the defendants made unsupported claims about their products' effectiveness.

Trademark and Unfair-Competition Claims

The defendants moved to dismiss the trademark and related unfair-competition claims for failure to plausibly allege a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court evaluated the allegations under the eight-factor test used in the Ninth Circuit, considering the strength of the marks, the relatedness of the goods, the marks' similarity, actual confusion, marketing channels, consumer care, intent, and likely expansion of product lines.

The court concluded that the First Amended Complaint plausibly alleged likely confusion. Although the marks had meaningful differences and the parties did not yet directly compete, the court found that the parties operated in the beauty industry, used marks consisting of two interlocking S's, used trade names featuring “Saint” or “Saints,” marketed through social media and the internet, and could plausibly expand between haircare and skincare. The court held that the competing considerations were better addressed on a factual record rather than resolved at the pleading stage.

The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss as to the trademark infringement and unfair-competition claims.

False-Advertising Claim

The defendants challenged the false-advertising claim on standing and pleading-particularity grounds. The court dismissed the claim for lack of statutory standing under the Lanham Act because Vicious Brands did not plausibly allege that its planned skincare products would specifically compete with the defendants' products. The allegations referred generally to an unspecified skincare product and stated, without supporting details, that the product would compete directly with the defendants' products.

The court also ruled that the claim failed Rule 9(b), which requires allegations of fraud to identify the circumstances of the alleged misconduct with particularity. The First Amended Complaint connected only some of the challenged statements to particular products and did not explain the factual basis for Vicious Brands' belief that the defendants' claims lacked scientific support. The court stated that, even if standing had been adequately alleged, the false-advertising claim would still be dismissed for failure to plead the alleged falsehoods with the required particularity.

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the false-advertising claim and granted Vicious Brands leave to amend. The court did not resolve the constitutional standing question because the claim was subject to dismissal on other grounds. Vicious Brands could file a second amended complaint addressing the identified defects no later than August 8, 2025.

Other Procedural Rulings and Disposition

The court stated that the parties' judicial-notice materials did not affect the outcome. It also denied as moot the defendants' request to file a short response to portions of Vicious Brands' objections.

In conclusion, Judge Lisa J. Cisneros held that the defendants' motion was denied as to the trademark and unfair-competition claims and granted as to the false-advertising claim. The order did not resolve the ultimate factual question whether consumers were actually likely to be confused.