Plaintiff owns registrations for, among other marks, FRAGRANCENET and FRAGRANCENET.COM. Defendant moves to dismiss based on genericness. The only record here is the pleadings. A registered trademark is entitled to a (rebuttable) presumption that it functions as a trademark. This seems to me to be an impossible 12(b)(6) grounds for dismissal, unless the motion to dismiss is combined with something else that builds a record, such as a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court notes:
In fact, at oral argument, both sides state that, based upon their research (which is consistent with the Court’s independent research), they were aware of no case ever in this Circuit where a court has, at the motion to dismiss stage, lacking an evidentiary record, dismissed a trademark claim on the grounds that a registered product or service name . . .was generic as a matter of law.”
Well, the motion still delayed the case 6 months.
Decision Fragrance Net Generic MTD