Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 23 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:120

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL Case No. SACV 13-00209-CJC(JPRx) Date: April 22, 2013

Title: BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC V. YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA

PRESENT: HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Michelle Urie Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

N/A Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS [filed 03/29/13] Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for April 29, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Plaintiff Beats Electronics, LLC (Beats) brought this action against Defendant Yamaha Corporation of America (Yamaha), alleging federal and state law claims for trade dress infringement, patent infringement, and unfair competition. (Dkt. No. 1 [Compl.].) Beats alleges that Yamahas Pro 300, Pro 400, and Pro 500 headphones have a confusingly similar design and appearance to Beats Studio, Solo, and Wireless headphones. Yamaha now moves to dismiss the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action for trade dress infringement and unfair competition. Yamaha contends that the Complaint fails to plead the elements of the alleged trade dress with sufficient specificity and therefore fails to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Yamahas motion is DENIED.

Case 8:13-cv-00209-CJC-JPR Document 23 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL Case No. SACV 13-00209-CJC(JPRx) Date: April 22, 2013 Page 2

ANALYSIS A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. In considering whether to dismiss a case for failure to state a claim, the issue before the Court is not whether the claimant will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims asserted. Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994). Rule 12(b)(6) is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim is not proper where a plaintiff has alleged enough facts 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 dress infringement and unfair competition against Yamaha. To state a claim for trade dress infringement under 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), the plaintiff must allege that the trade dress is (1) non-functional, (2) either inherently distinctive or [has] acquired distinctiveness through a secondary meaning, and (3) likely to be confused with the defendants product by the consuming public. Disc Golf Assn, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1998). Beats alleges that it has trade dress rights in the distinctive appearance of its headphones, consisting of the overall 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 collection of products shown in Exhibits AC. (Compl. 10.) Exhibits AC to the Complaint contain photographs of the headphones that are the subject of Beats trade dress claims. (See Compl. Exhs. AC.) Beats alleges that the design of its headphones is nonfunctional in that the headphones are uniquely highly stylized and sleek, and because of the attractive design customers have begun wearing the Beats Headphones around their necks as a fashion accessory even when not listening to music. (Compl. 8.) Beats also alleges that its headphones have a distinctive appearance that consumers have come to associate with Beats, and as a result of Beats extensive promotion, marketing, and sale of its headphones, including endorsements by performing artists and professional and collegiate 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 3 of 3 Page ID #:122

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL Case No. SACV 13-00209-CJC(JPRx) Date: April 22, 2013 Page 3

among consumers as identifying the source of the headphones. (Compl. 9, 1819.) In addition, Beats alleges sufficient factual support for the third element of its trade dress claim by alleging that there is confusing similarity between Yamahas headphones and Beats headphones supported by photographs comparing the appearance of the two headphone product lines in question. (See Compl. 1216; Exh. F.) Yamaha argues that Beats fails to state a claim for trade dress infringement because it does not adequately describe the discrete elements of the headphone designs in which it claims trade dress protection. As described above, however, Beats has alleged a detailed description of the elements of the claimed trade dress, which include the overall 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 collection of products shown in Exhibits AC. (Compl. 10.) Beats supplemented this written description with photographs of its headphones showing their distinctive design. (See Compl. Exhs. AC.) These allegations are sufficient to provide notice to Yamaha of the claimed trade dress and to state a claim for trade dress infringement. Beats fourth and fifth causes of action allege unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and California common law, respectively. Yamahas sole ground for challenging these claims is that they rely on the trade dress infringement claims and therefore must fail as well. (See Dkt. No. 12 [Pl.s Mot. to Dismiss], at 56.) Because the Court finds that Beats has sufficiently alleged claims for trade dress infringement, Yamahas motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the unfair competition claims as well. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Yamahas motion to dismiss is DENIED.

bsc MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MU