Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fan Fi International, Inc. v. Interlink Products International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 24, 2017

FAN FI INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge

         This case arises out of alleged false advertising. Pending before the Court are a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. The New Jersey Actions

         On February 29, 2016, Interlink Products International, Inc. (“Interlink”) sued Fan Fi International, Inc. (“Fan Fi”) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Fan Fi's sale of certain dual showerhead products violated U.S. Patent No. 7, 299, 510. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 in D.N.J. Case No. 2:16-cv-1142). Interlink amended the complaint on June 23, 2016 to add ETL, LLC as a defendant. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 14 in D.N.J. Case No. 2:16-cv-1142).

         On March 4, 2016, Interlink again sued Fan Fi in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, this time for trademark infringement and unfair competition under both federal and state law, based on Fan Fi's use of the “POWER SPA” mark. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 in D.N.J. Case No. 2:16-cv-1244). Interlink amended the complaint on June 23, 2016 to add ETL, LLC as a defendant. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 13 in D.N.J. Case No. 2:16-cv-1244). On July 29, 2016, Fan Fi and ETL counterclaimed for a declaration of non-infringement and cancellation of the mark. (See Answer & Countercl., ECF No. 23 in D.N.J. Case No. 2:16-cv-1244).

         On August 2, 2016, Interlink sued Fan Fi and ETL for a third time in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for false advertising under the Lanham Act and several related state law causes of action based on advertising claims Fan Fi and ETL made in relation to their showerhead products. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 in D.N.J. Case No. 2:16-cv-4663).

         On September 28, 2016, the three New Jersey Actions were consolidated in that district, with the ‘1142 Case as the lead case. On November 17, 2016, Fan Fi and ETL moved to transfer the New Jersey Actions to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As of February 6, 2017, the motion is fully briefed but no hearing has been set, and a settlement conference has been set for February 23, 2017.

         B. The Present Action

         On November 16, 2016 (a day before moving to transfer the New Jersey Actions to this District), Plaintiffs Fan Fi and ETL sued Defendant Interlink in this Court for false advertising under the Lanham Act and deceptive trade practices and unfair competition under state law. Plaintiffs allege that certain of Defendant's showerheads violate federal regulations because they permit a flow of greater than 2.5 gallons per minute (“gpm”) at 80 psi when the flow restrictor is removed and that the flow restrictors can be removed with less than eight pounds of force. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's advertising claims that its showerheads comply with federal law are therefore false.

         Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part. Plaintiffs had only alleged that Defendant's showerheads violated flow rate limitations if modified by consumers, not as sold by Defendant. The Court gave Plaintiffs leave to amend in that regard. The Court did not dismiss as to the allegation that Defendant's showerheads' flow restrictors could be removed with less than eight pounds of force (“the force test”), but the Court ordered Plaintiffs to make a more definite statement as to that allegation, i.e., to specify which of Defendant's products violated the force test. Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendant has moved to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim and has also moved for summary judgment.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's sufficiency. See N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.