Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 1 of 18
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`Patrick T. Michael (Bar no. 169745)
`Rebecca B. Horton (Bar no. 308052)
`3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone No.: (415) 374-2300
`Facsimile No.: (415) 274-2499
`patrick.michael@hoganlovells.com
`rebecca.horton@hoganlovells.com
`Anna Kurian Shaw (Pro Hac Vice)
`Lauren B. Cury (Pro Hac Vice)
`Hadley M. Dreibelbis (Pro Hac Vice)
`555 Thirteenth St, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone No.: (202) 637-5600
`Facsimile No.: (202) 637-5910
`anna.shaw@hoganlovells.com
`lauren.cury@hoganlovells.com
`hadley.dreibelbis@hoganlovells.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`UBERRE INC.,
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`DATE: August 25, 2022
`TIME: 10:00am
`COURTROOM: 11
`JUDGE: Honorable James Donato
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02806-JD
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 2 of 18
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................................................... 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Complaint Allegations & Statement of Relevant Facts ........................................... 1
`
`Legal Standard ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Argument ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Plaintiff’s Claims As To
`Real Estate Services. .................................................................................... 5
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Assert Its Claims In Their Entirety. ................ 6
`(i)
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing Because Its Purported Ownership of U.S.
`Reg. No. 5,052,252 is Based on an Invalid Assignment. ................. 7
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing For Failure to Plead Any Common Law
`Rights. .............................................................................................. 8
`
`(ii)
`
`Plaintiff Fails To State A Plausible Claim As To Travel Services. ............. 9
`(i)
`
`Plaintiff Fails To Allege Priority In The Asserted Mark With
`Respect to Travel Services. .............................................................. 9
`Plaintiff Fails To Allege Likelihood of Confusion Between Travel
`Services and Real Estate Services. ................................................. 10
`
`(ii)
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 12
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 3 of 18
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Hakim,
`556 Fed. Appx. 622 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................8
`
`Alixir Co. v. Que Onda Bev., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-08368-RGK-RAO, 2021 WL 971057 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021) ...........................11
`
`Antiaging Inst. of Cal., Inc. v. Solonova, LLC,
`No. 15-cv-03416-AB, 2015 WL 12792028 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2015) ......................................6
`
`Arroyo v. AJU Hotel Silicon Valley LLC,
`No. 20-cv-08218-JSW, 2021 WL 2350813 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021) ......................................2
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................1, 4
`
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.,
`901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. v. Celera Corp.,
`12 F. Supp. 3d 1194 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................................8
`
`Blazheiev v. Ubisoft Toronto Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-07160-EMC, 2018 WL 3417481 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2018)......................................6
`
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d 598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................3
`
`Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.,
`109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Gearsource Holdings, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 18-cv-03812-HSG, 2020 WL 3833258 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2020) ......................................11
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales and Mktg.,
`547 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names &
`Numbers, No. 12-08968-DDP, 2013 WL 489899 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2013) ...............................5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 4 of 18
`
`Mister Donut of Am., Inc. v. Mr. Donut, Inc.,
`418 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1969) .......................................................................................................7
`
`Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers,
`795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Nasser v. Julias Sämann,
`No. 17-cv-863-BTM-MDD, 2020 WL 10457001 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) ............................1
`
`Nutrition Distrib. LLC v. Fulfillment Pros LLC,
`No. 16-cv-03115-BAS-JLB, 2017 WL 3605340 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017) ..............................1
`
`Parkinson v. Robanda Int’l, Inc.,
`641 F. App’x. 745 (9th Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................................7
`
`Patito v. Countrywide Bank, FSB,
`No. C 09-04843 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 690131 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010) ..................................2
`
`R & R Partners, Inc. v. Tovar,
`447 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Nev. 2006) .....................................................................................7, 8
`
`Rearden LLC v. Rearden Com., Inc.,
`683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Rosenfeld v. Twentieth Cent. Fox Film,
`No. 07-7040 AHM (FFMx), 2008 WL 4381575 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2008) .............................8
`
`Sebastian Brown Prods. LLC v. Muzooka Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-01720-LHK, 2016 WL 949004 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) .................................9, 10
`
`Texas v. United States,
`523 U.S. 296 (1998) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n,
`220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Vital Pharms. v. PhD Mktg., Inc.,
`No. 20-6745-RSWL-JC x, 2021 WL 6882435 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021) ...................................6
`
`WeWork Cos. Inc. v. WePlus (Shanghai) Tech. Co. Ltd.,
`No. 5:18-cv-04543-EJD, 2020 WL 83845 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2020) ......................................3, 4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- iii -
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 5 of 18
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 25, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11 of the
`United States District Court located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, before
`the Honorable James Donato, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) will and hereby does
`respectfully move to dismiss the Complaint, in its entirety, of Plaintiff Uberre, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or
`“UberRE”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). This motion is
`based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and any
`exhibits thereto, Uber’s Request for Judicial Notice and any exhibits thereto, the accompanying
`Declaration of Rebecca Horton and any exhibits thereto, and such other authorities and argument
`as may be submitted in a reply at or before the hearing.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Uber respectfully
`requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff’s trademark
`infringement and unfair competition claims are premised on its purported ownership of U.S. Reg.
`No. 5,052,252 for the mark ÜBER in connection with “real estate agencies; real estate brokerage,”
`its purported common law rights in the mark ÜBER for “travel accommodations,” and its
`unfounded speculation that Uber “will release competing software that will offer competing . . .
`real estate services under the confusingly similar UBER TRAVEL mark.” Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”)
`¶¶ 1, 16. None of Plaintiff’s claims survive Rule 12 scrutiny. Plaintiff’s claims with respect to real
`estate services should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) as unripe. Plaintiff does not plead actual
`or imminent use by Uber of UBER TRAVEL with respect to real estate services – services Uber
`does not offer. All of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff
`lacks standing to assert them: the alleged assignment on which Plaintiff’s asserted registered rights
`rest is invalid as a matter of law, and Plaintiff fails to plead use of the ÜBER mark in commerce
`through which any common law rights could arise. Lastly, Plaintiff’s claims as to travel services
`are deficient under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff fails to plead (because it cannot) priority in the
`asserted mark with respect to travel services, or any likelihood of confusion between its purported
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`1
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 6 of 18
`
`rights in the mark ÜBER for real estate services and Uber’s use of UBER TRAVEL in connection
`with travel services.
`
`Dated: July 21, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`By: /s/ Anna Kurian Shaw
`
`Patrick T. Michael
`
`Rebecca B. Horton
`3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone No.: (415) 374-2300
`Facsimile No.: (415) 374-2499
`E-Mail:
`patrick.michael@hoganlovells.com
`rebecca.horton@hoganlovells.com
`
`Anna Kurian Shaw (Pro Hac Vice)
`Lauren B. Cury (Pro Hac Vice)
`Hadley M. Dreibelbis (Pro Hac Vice)
`555 Thirteenth St., NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone No.: (202) 637-5600
`Facsimile No.: (202) 637-5910
`Email:
`anna.shaw@hoganlovells.com
`lauren.cury@hoganlovells.com
`hadley.dreibelbis@hoganlovells.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Uber
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 2 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 7 of 18
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`There is nothing plausible about Plaintiff Uberre, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “UberRE”) claims,
`much less its outrageous demand for over $250 billion in damages. The Complaint is an assemblage
`of naked and conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual support, of Plaintiff’s supposed (yet
`sham) “travel accommodation and real estate” business, alleged (yet nonexistent) rights to the
`ÜBER mark for real estate services and travel services, and baseless claims that it has and will
`continue to suffer “irreparable injury” as a result of Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”)
`use of UBER TRAVEL for travel services. Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from three fundamental
`flaws that warrant its dismissal. First, Plaintiff’s claims as they relate to real estate services should
`be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) because they are unripe. Plaintiff does not plead that Uber offers
`or will imminently offer real estate services. Second, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6)
`because Plaintiff lacks standing to assert its claims. The registration it relies upon is based on an
`invalid assignment, and Plaintiff fails to plead any use in commerce that would give rise to common
`law rights. Third, Plaintiff’s claims with respect to travel services are deficient under Rule 12(b)(6).
`Plaintiff does not plead, and does not have, priority over Uber with respect to travel services and
`does not allege likelihood of confusion between Uber’s use of UBER TRAVEL for travel services
`and Plaintiff’s alleged rights in ÜBER for real estate services. For the reasons stated herein,
`Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
`
`I.
`
`Complaint Allegations & Statement of Relevant Facts
`For the purposes of this Motion only, Uber treats Plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true,
`but not Plaintiff’s “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” or “mere conclusory
`statements[.]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In support of Uber’s Motion, Uber is
`contemporaneously filing a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) of public records from the U.S.
`Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the Florida Department of State, and the California
`Department of Real Estate. This Court can consider those records on a motion to dismiss without
`converting Uber’s Motion into one for summary judgment. See, e.g., Nasser v. Julias Sämann, No.
`17-cv-863-BTM-MDD, 2020 WL 10457001 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) (taking judicial notice of
`USPTO documents and granting motion to dismiss); Nutrition Distrib. LLC v. Fulfillment Pros
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`1
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 8 of 18
`
`LLC, No. 16-cv-03115-BAS-JLB, 2017 WL 3605340, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017) (taking
`judicial notice of Florida Department of State public records and granting motion to dismiss); Patito
`v. Countrywide Bank, FSB, No. C 09-04843 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 690131, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
`23, 2010) (taking judicial notice of California Department of Real Estate public records and
`granting motion to dismiss). And, as Plaintiff makes reference to its website in the Complaint,
`which website forms the basis of Plaintiff’s alleged use on which its asserted rights rest (see Compl.
`¶¶ 10, 33), this Court can consider that website on Uber’s Motion as well. See Arroyo v. AJU Hotel
`Silicon Valley LLC, No. 20-cv-08218-JSW, 2021 WL 2350813, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021)
`(considering website pages “under the doctrine of incorporation by reference” and granting motion
`to dismiss). Screenshots of Plaintiff’s website are included as Exhibits A through D to the
`Declaration of Rebecca Horton attached in support of this Motion.
`Plaintiff UberRE claims to be an “innovative temporary travel accommodation and real
`estate company[.]” Compl. ¶ 11. Yet, according to public records, Plaintiff has registered itself as
`doing business under several names, all of which follow the same naming convention: (1) the name
`of a well-known technology company, including, but not limited to, Defendant Uber and (2) “RE”
`or “Real Estate” following that name.1 Ex. D to Uber’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”).
`Plaintiff alleges that it “acquired the intellectual property rights and goodwill in the ÜBER
`mark” (U.S. Reg. No. 5,052,252) through a “Trademark Assignment” agreement with Mr. James
`Whatley. Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. 2. But that assignment was an invalid assignment in gross as supported
`by public records from the Florida Department of State that indicate Mr. Whatley still operates the
`business associated with the ÜBER mark. RJN Ex. C. And even if rights to the mark transferred,
`the ÜBER registration only covers “[r]eal estate agencies; real estate brokerage,” and does not
`extend to any services that include providing or booking travel accommodations, travel
`arrangements, travel services or travel technology. Compl. Ex. 1.
`Defendant Uber is the owner of multiple UBER-formative trademark applications and
`
`1 Plaintiff has registered itself as doing business as UBERRE, UBERREALESTATE, Uber Real
`Estate, LyftRE, Lyft Real Estate, LyftRealEstate, TESLARE, TESLAREALESTATE, WAYMO,
`WAYMOREALESTATE, Waymo Real Estate, WAZERE, WAZEREALESTATE, DIDIRE,
`DIDIREALESTATE, and Didi Real Estate. RJN Ex. D.
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 2 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 9 of 18
`
`registrations in connection with travel-related services, at least two of which are relevant to this
`Motion. First, Uber is the owner of the UBER mark, per U.S. Registration No. 6,747,516 (the
`“UBER Registration”). RJN Ex. B. The UBER Registration covers a myriad of travel services,
`including, inter alia, “downloadable software for booking travel,” id. at 2, “providing a website
`featuring information regarding travel arrangement,” id. at 8, and “travel arrangement.” Id. Uber’s
`application for the UBER Registration was filed on March 6, 2019, id. at 12, and the UBER
`Registration claims a date of first use of the UBER mark with respect to the covered travel-related
`services at least as early as October 2010. Id. at 4, 9. More recently, on January 3, 2022, Uber
`filed Application Serial No. 97200373 for the mark UBER TRAVEL (the “UBER TRAVEL”
`Application”). RJN Ex. A. Importantly, that application does not claim any real estate services.
`See id.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that it “reached out to [Uber] multiple times to discuss the co-existence,
`and potential partnership, between the two companies[.]” Compl. ¶ 12. But, Plaintiff does not
`allege (because it cannot) that anyone from Uber solicited or requested Plaintiff’s supposed “reach[]
`out[s],” or that anyone responded. See id. Likely frustrated by Uber’s lack of interest in a
`“partnership” with it and supported only by its baseless speculation of how Uber may use UBER
`TRAVEL in the future (see Compl. ¶ 16), Plaintiff filed this litigation, purportedly seeking $250
`billion in damages and injunctive relief against Uber for trademark infringement and unfair
`competition.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`Uber moves this Court to dismiss the Complaint under two bases: Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
`subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
`Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is required where the claim asserted is not ripe. WeWork
`Cos. Inc. v. WePlus (Shanghai) Tech. Co. Ltd., No. 5:18-cv-04543-EJD, 2020 WL 83845, at *3
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2020) (“Ripeness is designed to prevent the courts, through avoidance of
`premature adjudication, from ‘entangling themselves in abstract disagreements.’”); Chandler v.
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1322-23 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing claim
`as unripe under Rule 12(b)(1) as the claims involved “future events that are too uncertain and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 3 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 10 of 18
`
`speculative to permit Plaintiff to proceed with his lawsuit”), aff’d 598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).
`Because ripeness pertains to a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff “bears the burden
`of proving jurisdiction exists[.]” WeWork, 2020 WL 83845, at *2 (granting Rule 12(b)(1) motion
`to dismiss for unripe trademark infringement claims). “A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it
`rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at
`all.’” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (internal citations omitted). As such, the
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the issues presented are “definite and concrete, not
`hypothetical or abstract.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th
`Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Otherwise, dismissal is required under Rule
`12(b)(1). See id.
`To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
`accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
`(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although in considering a
`motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must accept all factual allegations as true and
`resolve all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, the Court need not accept as true
`“allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
`inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations
`omitted). Likewise, “courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
`allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007). “Nor does a [pleading] suffice if it tenders ‘naked
`assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
`550 U.S. at 557). Rather, a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual allegations to “allow[ ] the court
`to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
`(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
`III.
`Argument
`Plaintiff’s Complaint is littered with bare-boned and conclusory allegations that fail to state
`any ripe or plausible claim against Uber, and must be dismissed under Rule 12. As described in
`more detail below, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s claims as to real estate
`services because they are unripe, Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any claim because it does not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 4 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 11 of 18
`
`have or adequately plead rights in the ÜBER mark, and Plaintiff has no plausible trademark
`infringement or unfair competition claim as to travel services because it fails to plead an adequate
`basis for such claims.
`(a)
`This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Plaintiff’s Claims As To
`Real Estate Services.
`Plaintiff’s claims with respect to real estate services are unripe and should be dismissed
`under Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff’s claims fail facially because Plaintiff fails to plead actual or
`imminent use by Uber of the UBER TRAVEL mark with respect to real estate services. To plead
`claims for trademark infringement or unfair competition, a plaintiff must allege the defendant is
`actually using or intends to imminently use the allegedly infringing mark in commerce. See
`Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers, 795 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.
`2015). Where a plaintiff does not allege a defendant’s “use of the trademark or ‘immediate
`capability and intent’ to infringe,” any infringement or unfair competition claim is “merely
`speculative” and “is not ripe for adjudication.” Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for
`Assigned Names & Numbers, No. 12-08968-DDP (JCx), 2013 WL 489899, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
`7, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss).
`Here, Plaintiff’s only allegations with respect to Uber’s use of UBER TRAVEL are (1) a
`reference to Uber’s pending UBER TRAVEL Application (RJN Ex. A),2 and (2) a statement based
`only on Plaintiff’s “information and belief” that Uber “will release competing software that will
`offer competing travel accommodation and real estate services under the confusingly similar UBER
`TRAVEL mark.” Compl. ¶¶ 15-16. Neither allegation pleads the requisite actual or imminent use
`of UBER TRAVEL with respect to the offering of real estate services. Indeed, the UBER TRAVEL
`application does not cover real estate services. RJN Ex. A. And Plaintiff has not pled any actual
`or imminent use by Uber of UBER TRAVEL with respect to such real estate services. See
`generally, Compl. Plaintiff’s claims are not saved by its naked assertion, upon unspecified
`information and belief, that Uber will release unspecified software at an unspecified time that will
`
`2 Plaintiff does not reference this application by serial number, but rather notes its January 3,
`2022 filing date and coverage of UBER TRAVEL. Compl. ¶ 15. Application Serial No. 97200373
`is the only Uber trademark application meeting this description.
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 5 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 12 of 18
`
`offer unspecified real estate services. That bare allegation does not meet the pleading requirements
`for imminent use to establish ripeness and subject matter jurisdiction. Vital Pharms. v. PhD Mktg.,
`Inc., No. 20-6745-RSWL-JC, 2021 WL 6882435, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021) (stating that
`“[e]ven accepting as true the allegation that Counter-defendants have the intent to enter the market,
`those allegations are insufficient in showing the requisite capability and immediacy[]” to support a
`claim for infringement, as is the “bare allegation” that Defendant owns the marks).
`Whereas here, Plaintiff’s theory of infringement as to real estate services is based on
`speculative future use that Plaintiff fails to plead will imminently occur (because it cannot),
`Plaintiff’s claims as to real estate services are not ripe, and dismissal is appropriate for lack of
`subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Name.Space, 795 F.3d at 1132 (affirming dismissal
`of Lanham Act, common law trademark, and common law unfair competition claims where
`plaintiff failed to allege actual or imminent use of the allegedly infringing mark).
`(b)
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Assert Its Claims In Their Entirety.
`The Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because Plaintiff lacks statutory standing
`to assert rights in the ÜBER mark. “To establish standing to sue for trademark infringement under
`the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must show that he or she is either (1) the owner of a federal mark
`registration, (2) the owner of an unregistered mark, or (3) a nonowner with a cognizable interest in
`the allegedly infringed trademark.” Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales and Mktg., 547 F.3d
`1213, 1225 (9th Cir. 2008). These requirements overlap with those for standing to assert Plaintiff’s
`unfair competition claim. Antiaging Inst. of Cal., Inc. v. Solonova, LLC, No. 15-cv-03416-AB
`(FFMx), 2015 WL 12792028, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2015) (to have standing to bring a Section
`1125(a) claim, a plaintiff must plead that it is either “the owner” or has some other “cognizable
`interest” in the mark); Blazheiev v. Ubisoft Toronto Inc., No. 17-cv-07160-EMC, 2018 WL
`3417481, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2018) (dismissing trademark infringement and Section 1125
`federal unfair competition claim together when Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead ownership of
`the at-issue mark). In this case, Plaintiff appears to seek an inference of standing based on two
`sources: (1) its purported acquisition of U.S. Reg. No. 5,052,252 by assignment (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9,
`Ex. 2); and (2) its alleged common law rights. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff cannot establish standing under
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 6 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 13 of 18
`
`either theory.
`(i)
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing Because Its Purported Ownership of U.S.
`Reg. No. 5,052,252 is Based on an Invalid Assignment.
`Plaintiff is unable to establish standing based on its asserted acquisition of U.S. Reg. No.
`5,052,252. The purported assignment of that registration to Plaintiff is invalid for failure to transfer
`the associated goodwill. “The law is well settled that there are no rights in a trademark alone and
`that no rights can be transferred apart from the business with which the mark has been associated.”
`Mister Donut of Am., Inc. v. Mr. Donut, Inc., 418 F.2d 838, 842 (9th Cir. 1969). “A trademark
`assignment that functionally severs the trademark from its accompanying goodwill is an invalid
`assignment in gross.” Parkinson v. Robanda Int’l, Inc., 641 F. App’x. 745, 746 (9th Cir. 2016)
`(finding district court did not err in dismissing trademark infringement claim when plaintiff did not
`sufficiently plead facts of a valid assignment).
`Here, Plaintiff’s only basis for its alleged rights in U.S. Reg. No. 5,052,252 is its allegation
`that its president, Brent Ritz, “acquired the intellectual property rights and goodwill in the ÜBER
`mark” through a “valid assignment” from James Whatley. Compl. ¶ 9. While the assignment
`agreement states that Mr. Whatley assigned his “business associated with the Trademarks, together
`with the goodwill of the business connected with and symbolized by the Trademarks,” Compl. Ex.
`2, those words “do[] not control the validity of the assignment.” R & R Partners, Inc. v. Tovar,
`447 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1149 (D. Nev. 2006) (citing 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 18.24) (finding
`an invalid assignment in gross). The available public records, including those of the Florida
`Division of Corporations, indicate that no such transfer of goodwill to Plaintiff in fact took place.
`RJN Ex. C. Instead, those records show Mr. Whatley continues to operate his real estate business
`(Uber Realty LLC) in Florida and remains the owner of that entity, for which no change of
`ownership or association with Plaintiff has been recorded.3 Id. And there are no allegations by
`Plaintiff that Plaintiff is registered to do or does business–real estate or otherwise–in Florida, or
`any other factual allegation to reasonably infer that goodwill was transferred to Plaintiff in
`connection with the assignment. Accordingly, the assignment was an invalid assignment in gross,
`
`3 Nor is there any indication, in the assignment or otherwise, that Plaintiff licensed back the
`assigned mark to Mr. Whatley. See generally, Compl., including Compl. Ex. 2.
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02806-JD
`
`- 7 -
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US
`LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02806-JD Document 28 Filed 07/21/22 Page 14 of 18
`
`(ii)
`
`Plaintiff has no valid rights in U.S. Reg. No. 5,052,252, and Plaintiff has no standing to bring
`trademark and unfair competition claims based on that registration. R&R Partners, 447 F. Supp.
`2d at 1149 (finding a party had no standing to bring trademark claims due to invalid assignmen