Hensley Mfg. v. Propride, Inc., 08-1834.

Decision Date03 September 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-1834.,08-1834.
PartiesHENSLEY MANUFACTURING, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROPRIDE, INCORPORATED; Sean Woodruff; James C. Hensley, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

ARGUED: Craig A. Redinger, Young Basile, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. Josh J. Moss, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, John F. Early, Jr., Law Office, Fenton, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Marshall G. MacFarlane, Young Basile, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. Josh J. Moss, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, John F. Early, Jr., Law Office, Fenton, Michigan, for Appellees.

Before: McKEAGUE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; MARBLEY, District Judge.*

OPINION

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge.

Hensley Manufacturing, Inc. ("Hensley Manufacturing") and ProPride, Inc., ("ProPride") both manufacture and sell trailer hitches for "RVers" everywhere. And, more importantly, both companies manufacture and sell trailer hitches designed by the same man: James Hensley (also known as "Jim Hensley"). Hensley Manufacturing claims that ProPride's use of Jim Hensley's name in its advertising material is likely to confuse consumers and infringes upon Hensley Manufacturing's registered trademark in the name "Hensley."

Hensley Manufacturing sued ProPride, its founder Shawn Woodruff, and Jim Hensley (collectively, "defendants") in federal district court, asserting, inter alia, a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint, and Hensley Manufacturing filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and denied Hensley Manufacturing's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that ProPride's use of Jim Hensley's name fell under the fair use exception to trademark infringement claims.

On appeal, Hensley Manufacturing argues that the complaint adequately stated a claim for trademark infringement. It also argues that the district court prematurely dismissed the complaint on the basis of the affirmative defense of fair use and improperly considered matters outside the complaint. We affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

Hensley Manufacturing is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Davison, Michigan. It designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells trailer-towing products. ProPride is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Grand Blanc, Michigan. ProPride also designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells trailer-towing products in competition with Hensley Manufacturing.

Hensley Manufacturing alleges that on February 22, 1994, it purchased the trailer hitch business of Jim Hensley—an inventor and designer of trailer hitches—as a going concern.1 The company marketed and sold Jim Hensley's trailer hitch under the name "Hensley Arrow" or "Arrow." The company also registered a trademark for the name "Hensley" as well as the "Hensley Arrow" graphic design.2 Hensley Manufacturing alleges that these trademarks have become widely known and respected in the marketplace for trailers and recreational vehicles, or "RVs."

Sean Woodruff worked as a sales and marketing director at Hensley Manufacturing until July 2007, when he left and formed ProPride. At about the same time, Jim Hensley also split with Hensley Manufacturing. Hensley designed a new trailer hitch and licensed the new design to ProPride. ProPride began marketing this hitch as the "ProPride Pivot Point Projection Hitch," or "3P Hitch."

On January 30, 2008, Hensley Manufacturing sued ProPride, Sean Woodruff, and Jim Hensley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Hensley Manufacturing brought claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, breach of contract against Jim Hensley, misappropriation of trade secrets against Woodruff and ProPride, and tortious interference with business relations. Specifically, Hensley Manufacturing alleged that defendants had "misappropriated the Plaintiff's registered trademark by offering for sale products and services utilizing the `HENSLEY' trademark," such that there was a "strong likelihood of confusion in the marketplace as to the source of origin and sponsorship of the goods." In support of these allegations, the complaint referred to four attached examples of ProPride's promotional and advertising materials.

Two of these attached examples are print advertisements by ProPride. Both advertisements state: "Only one man has ever designed a trailer hitch that effectively eliminates trailer sway before it begins. That man is Jim Hensley. NOW he has done it again and IMPROVED the PERFORMANCE of his old design." Both advertisements provide ProPride's telephone number. One advertisement directs the reader to "www.TrailerSwayControl Facts.com," which is part of ProPride's website, for a free report regarding towing safety. The other advertisement specifically identifies ProPride and provides its website address: "www.ProPrideHitch. com." Both advertisements also contain a disclaimer at the bottom, which states that Jim Hensley is "no longer affiliated with Hensley Mfg., Inc."

In addition to the two print advertisements, an excerpt from ProPride's website was also attached as an exhibit to the complaint. The website includes a link to "The Jim Hensley Hitch Story," which describes Jim Hensley's background, his design contributions to the RV industry, and his relationship to both Hensley Manufacturing and ProPride. The website refers to the 3P hitch as "Jim's new design."

The final attached example of ProPride's alleged trademark infringement is an eBay listing by ProPride entitled "Used Hensley Arrow(R) hitch? Buy NEW Jim Hensley Design." The body of the advertisement, which markets the 3P Hitch, states:

Jim Hensley designed the original Hensley Arrow(R) towing system and it was the standard for over 13 years.

NOW he has done it again with an updated and improved design for today's travel trailers.

Jim is no longer affiliated with the company that was named after him. He chose ProPride, Inc. as the manufacturer of his new design.

On April 1, 2008, Jim Hensley filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which was quickly followed by a motion to dismiss filed by ProPride and Sean Woodruff. Hensley Manufacturing opposed both motions. It also filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin defendants from using Jim Hensley's name in connection with the sale or advertising of ProPride's products.

The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and denied Hensley Manufacturing's motion for a preliminary injunction. It held that "[t]he use of an individual's name in a descriptive sense, as opposed to the use as a trade name is acceptable under" the fair use exception to claims of trademark infringement. Hensley Mfg., Inc. v. Propride, Inc., 622 F.Supp.2d 554, 559 (E.D.Mich.2008). Because Hensley Manufacturing's claims were based upon ProPride's use of Jim Hensley's name in connection with his individual reputation, and not as a trade name, the district court held that the fair use exception applied and it accordingly dismissed the trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. Reasoning that a successful breach of contract action could have only been based upon a valid claim for trademark infringement, the district court also held that Hensley Manufacturing had failed to state a claim for breach of contract against Jim Hensley.3 Further, having dismissed Hensley Manufacturing's federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The district court then denied Hensley Manufacturing's motion for a preliminary injunction, which it found had been rendered moot in light of the ruling on the motions to dismiss. Hensley Manufacturing timely appealed the final judgment of the district court.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review

Whether the district court properly dismissed Hensley Manufacturing's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is a question of law, which we review de novo. Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir.2008). We may affirm the district court's dismissal of a plaintiff's claims on any grounds, including grounds not relied upon by the district court. Zaluski v. United Am. Healthcare Corp., 527 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir.2008).

Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although this standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," it does require more than "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).4 Rather, to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true, are sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," id., and to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. And although we must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, we need not "`accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92...

To continue reading

Request your trial
876 cases
  • Forrester v. Clarenceville Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • May 6, 2021
    ...... "may not consider matters beyond the complaint." Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc. , 579 F.3d 603, 613 (6th Cir. ......
  • Khatri v. Ohio State Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • January 17, 2020
    ......2010); Jackson v . Prof'l Radiology Inc ., 864 F.3d 463, 465-66 (6th Cir. 2017); Boulger v . ... defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Hensley Mfg . v . ProPride , Inc ., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. ......
  • Husted v. Taggart (In re ECS Ref., Inc.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Ninth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of California
    • December 15, 2020
    ......Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. , 188 A.2d 125, 130 (1963). But as applied to decision-making, ...1 (9th Cir. 1997) ; Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc. , 579 F.3d 603, 613 (6th Cir. 2009) ; see also , ......
  • Luis v. Zang
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 16, 2016
    ...... and its manufacturer, Awareness Technologies, Inc., surreptitiously intercepted the emails, instant messages, ... level” and is “plausible on its face.” Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Not All Is Fair (Use) In Trademarks And Copyrights
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 21, 2012
    ...that the website was not endorsed by the plaintiff. Welles, 279 F.3d at 796 n.1; see also Hensley Manufacturing, Inc. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (defendant fairly used name of trailer hitch designer along with a disclaimer of designer's former affiliation with plaintiff......
3 books & journal articles
  • The pleading problem.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 5, May 2010
    • May 1, 2010
    ...(309.) See supra Part III.B. Not all courts have heeded this obligation. One example is Hensley Manufacturing v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009), which upheld the dismissal of a trademark infringement action because "the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to show that P......
  • Intellectual Property's Lessons for Information Privacy
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 92, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...doctrine.'"). 157. Estate of Presley v. Russen, 513 F. Supp. 1339, 1359-60 (D.N.J. 1981). 158. Hensley Mfg., Inc. v. Propride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 159. See KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004). 160. Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehou......
  • Use it or Lose It: the Sixth Circuit's New Approach to Evaluating Likelihood to Cause Consumer Confusion in Trademark Disputes
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 25-1, 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...(citing KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004)).72. Id. 73. Id.74. Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009).75. Id. at 610.76. DRATLER, supra note 24, § 10.01.77. Id.78. Id.79. Hensley Mfg., 579 F.3d at 610 (alteration in original) ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT