Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed claims arising from Belmora LLC’s FLANAX trademark and Bayer’s Mexican FLANAX mark. The court dismissed Bayer’s Lanham Act false-designation and false-advertising claims, dismissed related state-law claims, rejected Bayer’s Paris Convention counterclaim, and reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Belmora’s registration. The court concluded that Bayer lacked a protectable U.S. interest in the mark and had not used FLANAX in U.S. commerce.

Holdings

1. Bayer lacked statutory standing because it did not possess a protectable interest in FLANAX in United States commerce and did not sufficiently plead economic or reputational injury proximately caused by Belmora's conduct.
2. Bayer lacked statutory standing to sue for false advertising because it did not sufficiently plead injury to a commercial interest in sales or reputation proximately caused by Belmora's alleged misrepresentations.
3. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed Bayer's California unfair-competition and false-advertising claims after dismissing all federal claims.
4. Article 6bis is not self-executing, and Sections 44(b) and 44(h) of the Lanham Act do not create an independent cause of action or ground for cancellation based on a famous foreign mark not used in United States commerce.
5. Bayer lacked standing to seek cancellation under Section 14(3) because it did not use FLANAX in United States commerce, did not possess a protectable United States interest in the mark, and did not sufficiently plead proximate economic or reputational injury.
6. Section 14(3) contains a requirement that the petitioner have used the relevant mark in United States commerce; because Bayer had not done so, its misrepresentation-of-source claim failed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bayer had statutory standing under Lexmark to assert false-designation-of-origin claims under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act.
2. Whether Bayer had statutory standing to assert false-advertising claims under Section 43(a)(1)(B).
3. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Bayer's California state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.
4. Whether Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, through Sections 44(b) and 44(h) of the Lanham Act, creates an independent ground for contesting a United States trademark registration.
5. Whether Bayer had standing under Section 14(3) of the Lanham Act to seek cancellation of Belmora's registration.
6. Whether Section 14(3) requires use of the relevant mark in United States commerce and whether Bayer's lack of such use defeated its misrepresentation-of-source claim.

Disposition

reversed