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

Background

WeWork Companies Inc. brought a trademark-infringement action concerning Weplus (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd.’s “We+” marks. Weplus had announced a planned coworking location at 755 Sansome Street in San Francisco and had displayed its marks on the building and in promotional materials. WeWork sought an injunction against use of the marks in the United States and monetary damages.

The planned lease for the San Francisco location was never completed, and Weplus never operated there. The building owners later agreed to an injunction barring use of We+ trademarks, names, or logos in the United States, and WeWork leased the entire building. Weplus removed references to the San Francisco location from its website, stated that it had abandoned plans to open a United States location using the We+ mark, and was not discussing opening such a location. The opinion also states that Weplus was not affiliated with WePlus USA LLC, another defendant.

Judicial Notice

The court granted the defendants’ requests for judicial notice concerning publicly available California Secretary of State records and related documents, to the extent relevant to the Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

Rule 12(b)(1) and Mootness

Rule 12(b)(1) permits a defendant to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that no live dispute remained because the conduct at issue—Weplus’s proposed entry into the San Francisco market—could not reasonably be expected to recur. Weplus could not lease the San Francisco location, had no other lease or rental agreement for that location, had abandoned its United States plans using the We+ mark, and no We+ marks appeared at the location or elsewhere in the United States.

The court rejected WeWork’s argument that the voluntary-cessation exception kept the case alive. It explained that Weplus had not simply stopped its conduct after being sued; instead, WeWork’s acquisition of the building and the building owners’ injunction prevented Weplus from pursuing the San Francisco location. The court also rejected WeWork’s argument that its damages claim remained live, reasoning that the location never opened, consumers never saw the marks there, and the alleged confusion and resulting harm therefore did not occur.

Ripeness and Website Activity

The court also concluded that the case was not ripe for judicial review. Although Weplus’s website could be accessed in the United States, the website listed only Chinese locations and did not target United States consumers. The possibility that Weplus might target the United States in the future was too speculative to create a present controversy.

Disposition

The court held that no case or controversy remained and that it therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Weplus’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss without prejudice and did not reach Weplus’s related Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. The order amended an earlier order by removing the earlier dismissal with prejudice.