Global Commodities, Inc. v. Capital Distributors LLC and Capital Imports, LLC

Background

Plaintiff Global Commodities, Inc. (Global) is a New York corporation that sells food products — including rice, dry fruits, tea, candy, nuts, and spices — in the United States and Minnesota. Defendants Capital Distributors LLC and Capital Imports, LLC (together, Capital) also sell rice. On January 26, 2024, Global filed a seven-count complaint alleging that Capital's product packaging and marks infringed Global's intellectual property, including its "Fawn Image trademark" and bag design.

Count IV of the complaint asserted Minnesota common law trademark infringement, alleging that Capital "willfully misappropriated Plaintiff's Fawn Image trademarks and bag design" and that unauthorized use of a "colorable imitation" of Global's marks and bag features was likely to cause consumer confusion. Count VI separately alleged common law trade dress infringement.

Prior Ruling on Count VI

On Capital's earlier motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) — which allows dismissal for failure to state a legal claim — the court dismissed Count VI (common law trade dress infringement) along with two other counts. The court found that the complaint failed to "identify the elements that it believes comprise its protectable trade dress or explain how Capital's product imitates those features." That earlier dismissal set the stage for the current motion.

The Present Motion

On June 2, 2025, Capital filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) — a procedural device similar to a motion to dismiss that can be filed after both parties have submitted their initial pleadings. Capital asked the court to dismiss only the portion of Count IV that rested on product packaging (i.e., trade dress), arguing that the court's earlier reasoning about Count VI applied equally to this portion of Count IV.

Timeliness

Global argued the motion was untimely because it came after the deadline for Global to amend its complaint as of right. The court rejected this argument. Rule 12(c) permits such motions "after the pleadings are closed — but early enough not to delay trial," and Capital's motion fell within that window. The court also noted that Rule 15(a)(1)(B), which allows a party to amend as of right in response to certain motions, does not apply to Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings.

Legal Standard

The same standard that applies to Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss also governs Rule 12(c) motions. Courts accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. However, courts need not accept purely conclusory allegations or legal conclusions dressed up as facts. Under the standards established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), a complaint must contain sufficient factual detail to give the opposing party fair notice of the claims it must defend against.

Analysis

To state a claim for Minnesota common law trademark infringement, a plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) ownership of a protectable trademark and (2) that the defendant's mark was similar enough to the plaintiff's trademark to cause a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court noted that for trade dress claims specifically — which typically involve a product's design or packaging — a party must identify "what particular elements or attributes comprise the protectable trade dress."

The court found that Global's complaint included only a side-by-side photo comparison of the parties' products and vague references to Capital's imitation of Global's "bag design." The complaint did not identify which specific features of the bag constituted a protectable mark, nor did it articulate which particular features Capital allegedly copied. The court held that a photo alone, without accompanying factual allegations, cannot plausibly establish that Global owned a protectable interest in any specific feature or that Capital copied that feature. Without more specificity, Capital lacked adequate notice of what it was defending against, and the court could not evaluate whether the alleged mark met the legal requirements of non-functionality and distinctiveness.

The court also declined to informally allow amendment: Global had expressed in its opposition brief a desire to amend the complaint, but had not filed a formal motion for leave to amend as required by the court's local rules, and had not explained why such a request would succeed given that previous amendment requests had been denied by the Magistrate Judge.

Disposition

The court granted Capital's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Global's claim of common law trademark infringement under Count IV, to the extent based on trade dress, was dismissed without prejudice — meaning Global is not barred by this order from attempting to refile that specific claim, though the court noted the procedural hurdles Global would face in seeking to amend.