Pacer
| Friday, September 26, 2025 | ||
| 52 |  motion Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Fri 09/26 10:23 AMMOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) by Counter Defendant BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP.(Lake, Donald) |
|
| Att: 1 Appendix A to Motion to Dismiss |
||
| Tuesday, September 23, 2025 | ||
| 51 | order Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Tue 09/23 1:27 PM ORDER. Plaintiff and Counter Defendant BKK’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (D.40 ) is hereby STRICKEN (without prejudice) for excessive length in violation of Uniform Civil Practice Standard 10.1(c)(1). The Reply (D.46 ) is also slightly over the page length and is STRICKEN. This is the second time the Court has stricken an offending pleading (see D. 29 striking a pleading for lack of conferral). Should further pleadings be filed in violation of the Court’s published practice standards, the Court may exercise its discretion not to allow refiling. So Ordered By District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 9/23/2025. Text Only Entry.(amona,) |
|
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/53654061/BBK_Tobacco__Foods_LLP_v_JC_Corp
Case Summary
Perplixity AI
The case BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. J&C Corp., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 24-cv-01466) involves trademark infringement claims brought by BBK Tobacco, a distributor of smoking-related products under the “RAW” brand, against J&C Corp., which operates in the cannabis sector using similar branding.
Key points about the case:
-
BBK alleges that J&C Corp. infringed on its “RAW” trademark by selling cannabis products under a similar mark, causing brand confusion.
-
The case touches on complex issues around trademark protection in the cannabis industry, especially concerning federal trademark rights and the impact of federal law on profit disgorgement claims for infringement related to cannabis products.
-
There are broader implications regarding the ability to seek profit disgorgement for trademark infringement when the infringing products are cannabis-related, as federal law conflicts with cannabis legality.
-
Earlier related rulings in similar disputes have addressed the jurisdiction of district courts to invalidate trademark applications for lack of bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
-
The case reflects ongoing legal challenges surrounding trademark law’s intersection with cannabis commerce and trademark ownership disputes in this emerging market.
The case is significant for the trademark and cannabis industries, highlighting the complex legal landscape trademark owners face when protecting their brands in federally restricted markets like cannabis.
The court’s legal reasoning on trademark use, as generally established in trademark law and applicable to cases like BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. J&C Corp., focuses on the principle that a trademark must be used as a designation of source to qualify for protection under the Lanham Act. Specifically:
-
A mark must identify the source of goods or services and distinguish them from others. It must be used in a manner that makes such use as a trademark immediately evident to consumers.
-
If significant analysis or interpretation is needed to recognize the use as a trademark, it likely does not meet the legal criteria for trademark use.
-
The court looks at factors such as the placement, style, color, and labeling of the mark to determine if it functions as a source identifier.
-
Trademark infringement liability requires “use in commerce,” meaning the mark must be used on or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion.
-
The use must reduce customer confusion costs by clearly indicating the origin of the goods or services and protecting the trademark owner’s interest without overbroad monopolization of language or interference with competition.
These points reflect widely recognized trademark doctrines that guide courts’ assessments of whether alleged trademark use constitutes actionable infringement or valid protection under trademark law
Also read
Canna Law Blog
Federal Court Rejects “Illegality Defense” In Cannabis Trademark Case
Federal Court Rejects “Illegality Defense” In Cannabis Trademark Case
