Wag'N Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit Virginia Eastern District Wag'N Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations

Wag'N Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations

Plaintiff:	Wag'N Enterprises, LLC
Defendant:	United Animal Nations
Case Number:	1:2011cv00955
Filed:	September 7, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Alexandria Office
County:	Loudoun
Presiding Judge:	Leonie M. Brinkema
Presiding Judge:	Ivan D. Davis
Nature of Suit:	Trademark
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1051
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 9, 2012	Filing 71 MEMORANDUM OPINION: In sum, there are no material facts in dispute as to the likelihood of confusion between plaintiff's and defendant's marks. The record clearly shows that plaintiff's and defendant's marks are very dissimilar; "Wag'N Rover Respond'R" and "Rover Respond'R" are extremely weak marks; plaintiff cannot show that even a single consumer has in fact been confused by the use of defendant's mark; and there is no evidence ofdefe ndant acting in bad faith in adopting its mark. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that defendant's use of "RedRover Responders" does not infringe plaintiff's "Wag'N Rover Respond'R" or "Rover Respo nd'R" marks. Accordingly, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted and plaintiff's Motion will be denied by an Order to accompany this Memorandum Opinion.Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 05/09/12. (yguy)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 9, 2012

Filing 71 MEMORANDUM OPINION: In sum, there are no material facts in dispute as to the likelihood of confusion between plaintiff's and defendant's marks. The record clearly shows that plaintiff's and defendant's marks are very dissimilar; "Wag'N Rover Respond'R" and "Rover Respond'R" are extremely weak marks; plaintiff cannot show that even a single consumer has in fact been confused by the use of defendant's mark; and there is no evidence ofdefe ndant acting in bad faith in adopting its mark. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that defendant's use of "RedRover Responders" does not infringe plaintiff's "Wag'N Rover Respond'R" or "Rover Respo nd'R" marks. Accordingly, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted and plaintiff's Motion will be denied by an Order to accompany this Memorandum Opinion.Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 05/09/12. (yguy)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Wag'N Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Wag'N Enterprises, LLC
Represented By:	Jonathan Alan Schiffrin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: United Animal Nations
Represented By:	Matthew D. Berkowitz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?