9th Circuit reinstates "RED GOLD" trademark complaint: district court improperly ruled on genericism at motion-to-dismiss stage

Posted by Charles Colman

As an advocate of early dismissal of questionable trademark infringement lawsuits, my initial reaction to this unpublished Ninth Circuit ruling is, well, unfavorable.  (Of course, I'd probably feel differently if I had gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining a trademark registration and wanted "my day in court.")  The Ninth Circuit's brief opinion is embedded below, followed by the district court decision it reversed.

(On a side note, purportedly "non-precedential" decisions are uncool.  And possibly unconstitutional.  While I recognize that there are arguments in favor of the practice, it just seems intuitively wrong for a court to be able to declare certain of its opinions binding and others not.  What does that mean? That the court put less thought into this particular case? That the court isn't quite sure it got this one right?  Oh well, one battle at a time.)



Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling USA, Inc., 11-56439 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2013)




Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling USA, Inc., 2-11-Cv-00457-GAF-PLA (C.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2011) (REVERSED)



[Like everything on LAW OF FASHION, this post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities. Any views expressed in this post or at the linked web pages are those of the relevant writer(s) on a particular date, and should not necessarily be attributed to Charles Colman, his law firm, or its agents or clients. Neither the writer of this post nor LAW OF FASHION (or any person or entity associated with it) can or will warrant the thoroughness or accuracy of the content here or at the cited sources.]