Legendary Strikes Mobile Bowling, LLC. v. Luxury Strike LLC and Terrence Jackson, Jr., Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-05065-ELR (N.D. Ga. May 15, 2023)

Plaintiff struck Defendants with a lawsuit alleging that Defendants infringe Plaintiff’s standard character trademark, “Legendary Strikes Mobile Bowling” (The “Legendary Mark”). Order, at 1-2.  But the facts and procedural history are important.

On November 1, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the Defendants a trademark for the mark “Legendary Strikes Mobile Bowling.” Id. at 5. Shortly after, the USPTO indicated it would refuse a similar registration to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff’s application is presently suspended pending the outcome of the district court case. Id.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ trademark application and registration are fraudulent.  Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following claims: (i) fraudulent registration of a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1120; (ii) false designation of origin under §  1125(a); (iii) cyberpiracy under § 1125(d); and (iv) common law trademark infringement under Georgia law. Id. at 6. After being served with the Complaint, Defendants requested that Instagram, Wix, Linktree, and Squarespace take down Plaintiff’s social media and website content for infringing on Defendants’ registered mark. Id. Plaintiff responded by filing a motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and request for immediate hearing. Id.

“Plaintiff contends that it first used the Legendary Mark in commerce in October 2021 when it officially launched its business.” Id. at 13. Defendants counter Plaintiff’s proffered evidence with testimony that “Defendants have used the Legendary Mark ‘in commerce since the winter of 2020 to [market to] potential franchisees and interested parties globally. Id. at 14.’” “In short, the Parties ‘hotly contest[]’ the issue of who first used the [] Legendary Mark in commerce and who thus had priority in the same.” Id. at 16.

In its motion, the Plaintiff argued “the Court could determine now whether Defendants falsely represented that they were unaware of Plaintiff’s supposed senior use of the Legendary Mark at the time of Defendants’ trademark registration application.” Id. at 18. But the Court ultimately decided it did not have enough evidence to make this determination. Id. To address the issue, the Court set an evidentiary hearing to determine which party has valid ownership over the valid trademark rights in the Legendary Mark. Id. at 19.

The Court DENIES the motion to the extent it asks for a preliminary injunction based on Plaintiff’s Georgia law trademark infringement claim. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion to the extent it (1) seeks a temporary restraining order and (2) requests a hearing on the motion within two weeks of its filing. In all other respects, the Court RESERVES its ruling on the motion pending an evidentiary hearing.

Id. at 20.

Judge Ross scheduled the evidentiary hearing for Tuesday, June 6, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., but no further information regarding the outcome of the hearing is available at this time