UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-00209-CJC(JPRx) Date: April 22, 2013Page 2
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legalsufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. In considering whether to dismiss acase for failure to state a claim, the issue before the Court is not whether the claimant willultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support theclaims asserted.
Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp.
, 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). Whenevaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court must accept all material allegationsin the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-movingparty.
Moyo v. Gomez
, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994). Rule 12(b)(6) is read inconjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires only a short and plain statement of the claimshowing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal of acomplaint for failure to state a claim is not proper where a plaintiff has alleged “enoughfacts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).Here, Beats has alleged sufficient facts to state plausible claims for trade dressinfringement and unfair competition against Yamaha. To state a claim for trade dressinfringement under § 43 of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a),
the plaintiff must allegethat the trade dress is (1) non-functional, (2) either “inherently distinctive or [has]acquired distinctiveness through a secondary meaning,” and (3) likely to be confusedwith the defendant’s product by the consuming public.
Disc Golf Ass’n, Inc. v.Champion Discs, Inc.,
158 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1998). Beats alleges that it hastrade dress rights in the distinctive appearance of its headphones, consisting of “theoverall appearance of the shape and design of the headphones, including the size,proportion and curvature of the headband, yoke and earcups, as depicted in the collectionof products shown in Exhibits A–C.” (Compl. ¶ 10.) Exhibits A–C to the Complaintcontain photographs of the headphones that are the subject of Beats’ trade dress claims.(
Compl. Exhs. A–C.) Beats alleges that the design of its headphones is non-functional in that the headphones are uniquely “highly stylized and sleek,” and because of the attractive design customers have begun “wearing the Beats Headphones around theirnecks as a fashion accessory even when not listening to music.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) Beats alsoalleges that its headphones have a “distinctive appearance” that consumers have come toassociate with Beats, and as a result of Beats’ extensive promotion, marketing, and saleof its headphones, including endorsements by performing artists and professional andcollegiate athletes, the trade dress of its headphones has developed secondary meaning
Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 23 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:121