Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2021

Outdoor Pro Shop, Inc. v. Monster Energy Company

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:20-cv-05999
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Outdoor Pro Shop v. Monster Energy, Judge Freeman granted Monster’s motion to dismiss, allowing Outdoor Pro Shop to amend its complaint.

Who this affects

Outdoor Pro Shop, Inc. must amend its complaint to plead the dates of first use for its marks and the type of distinctiveness alleged; Monster Energy Company obtained dismissal of the complaint subject to amendment.

What happened

Outdoor Pro Shop, Inc. v. Monster Energy Company is a trademark dispute over Outdoor Pro Shop’s unregistered marks. Monster argued that the complaint did not state when Outdoor Pro Shop first used the marks in commerce or explain their distinctiveness.

Outdoor Pro Shop argued that it did not need to plead those facts. The court disagreed, ruling that Outdoor Pro Shop had to allege both the dates of first use and whether it claimed the marks were inherently distinctive or had gained distinctiveness through public recognition.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Monster’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court ordered Outdoor Pro Shop to file an amended complaint within 14 days.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Outdoor Pro Shop, Inc. v. Monster Energy Company · No. 5:20-cv-05999
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
June 21, 2021

Background

Outdoor Pro Shop, Inc. brought a trademark dispute involving its alleged unregistered marks. Monster Energy Company moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, arguing that Outdoor Pro Shop had not pleaded two required types of information: the dates on which it first used the marks in commerce, and facts showing that the marks were inherently distinctive or had acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning.

Outdoor Pro Shop opposed the motion and argued that these facts were not required in the complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed with Monster. It ruled that Outdoor Pro Shop had to plead the dates of first use for its marks and identify the specific type of distinctiveness it alleged—either inherent distinctiveness or acquired distinctiveness. The court stated that Outdoor Pro Shop had failed to plead either requirement.

Disposition

The court granted Monster’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. It ordered Outdoor Pro Shop to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order. The order was signed by United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman and dated June 21, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.