WeWork Companies Inc. v. Weplus Technology Co., Ltd.

Background

WeWork Companies Inc. brought a trademark-infringement action against five defendants, with Weplus (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd. and WePlus USA LLC remaining when this motion was decided. WeWork alleged that Weplus planned to open a coworking location at 755 Sansome Street in San Francisco and had used “We+” marks on the building and in promotional materials. WeWork sought an injunction barring use of the marks in the United States, including on websites and social-media platforms accessible there, as well as monetary damages.

Weplus had discussed leasing the San Francisco space but never entered a lease, operated there, or served employees or customers there. Later, the building owners agreed to a consent injunction barring use of “We+” trademarks, names, or logos in the United States. WeWork also leased the entire building. The “We+” mark no longer appeared there, Weplus removed references to the location from its website, and Weplus stated that it had abandoned plans to open a U.S. location using the mark.

Judicial Notice

The court granted Weplus’s requests for judicial notice concerning information from the California Secretary of State’s publicly available website and related documents. The court limited its analysis to requests relevant to the Rule 12(b)(1) motion because it did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Rule 12(b)(1) and Mootness

Rule 12(b)(1) permits a party to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The court treated Weplus’s argument as a factual jurisdictional challenge and considered evidence outside the complaint, including declarations. The court explained that federal courts may decide only cases involving an ongoing, real dispute between the parties.

The court agreed that the case was moot. Although the dispute was initially ripe because Weplus had taken substantial steps toward opening the San Francisco location, later events eliminated the live controversy. Weplus could not lease the building because WeWork controlled the entire property and the building owners had agreed not to use the “We+” marks. Weplus also had no other lease or rental agreement for the location and had abandoned its U.S. plans using the mark.

The court concluded that there was no present risk that Weplus would open the San Francisco location or that consumers would be confused by the marks. It rejected WeWork’s argument that the case remained live merely because Weplus might someday reenter the U.S. market. The court also explained that the voluntary-cessation exception was likely inapplicable because Weplus had not voluntarily stopped the conduct; WeWork’s acquisition of the building prevented the planned opening.

The court separately rejected WeWork’s argument that its damages claim remained live. The complaint alleged potential harm from consumer confusion, but the location never opened, no employees or customers were served there, and WeWork did not allege that customers saw the marks. The court therefore found the damages claim moot as well.

Ripeness

Ripeness asks whether a dispute has become definite and immediate enough for judicial review. The court held that the case was not ripe based on Weplus’s website. Although the website could be accessed in the United States, it listed only Chinese locations and did not target U.S. consumers. The possibility that Weplus might target the U.S. market later was too speculative to create a live controversy.

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Disposition

Because the court found no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. The court held that no case or controversy remained, granted Weplus’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), and dismissed the action with prejudice because the jurisdictional defect could not be cured. The court did not reach Weplus’s separate Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.