Pleading Safe Distance Rule No Grounds For Dismissal

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims because plaintiff’s inclusion of the Safe Distance Rule in the complaint was not impermissible. “Defendants argue that because Defendants are not yet proven infringers, Plaintiff is not entitled to plead the Safe Distance Rule. However, in the event a jury finds that Defendants infringed, the Safe Distance Rule could apply to fashioning the permanent injunction. And because Plaintiff seeks such injunctive relief, Plaintiff is entitled to plead the Safe Distance Rule. . . . [Additionally,] even if the Safe Distance Rule was potentially prejudicial to the jury, the proper way to handle the issue would be in a motion in limine where courts may exclude evidence that would be overly prejudicial or confusing to the jury.”

Noorani Trading Inc. v. Bijani et al, 1-17-cv-01344 (GAND 2018-02-07, Order) (Leigh Martin May)

2018-02-09T13:01:02+00:00February 9th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|