Legal Opinion

Quintessential, LLC v. Quintessential Brands SA

District Court, N.D. California

Decided February 7, 2022No. 3:20-cv-01722Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 QUINTESSENTIAL, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-01722-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 65 10 QUINTESSENTIAL BRANDS S.A., et al., Defendants. 11 12 Defendants Quintessential Brands S.A., Quintessential Brands North America, LLC, and 13 MHW, Ltd., ask to dismiss plaintiff Quintessential, LLC’s first amended complaint for failure to 14 state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 65. Defendants do not challenge plaintiff’s first cause 15 of action for trademark infringement, but seek dismissal of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  5. Alex Cannara v. Karla NemethCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API