Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Op. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. (In re Reynoldsburg)

Decision Date28 February 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–55276.,12–55276.
Citation744 F.3d 595
PartiesAIRS AROMATICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, DE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. OPINION VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Reynoldsburg, OH, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John Derrick, Law Office of John Derrick, Santa Barbara, CA, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Diana Torres, Michael Shipley, and David Klein, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantAppellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:11–cv–04718–R–JC.

Before: JEROME FARRIS, N. RANDY SMITH, and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

I

Airs Aromatics, a purported owner of an ANGEL DREAMS trademark, filed a lawsuit against Victoria's Secret alleging breach of contract claims and requesting cancellation of Victoria's Secret's registered DREAM ANGELS trademark. The district court entered an order dismissing the complaint for failure to allege actual breaches of the contract and lack of standing for the cancellation claim. Airs Aromatics appealed only the dismissal of the cancellation claim.

Airs International began using the trademark ANGEL DREAMS in connection with the sale of perfume and personal care products in 1991. In 1999, Airs International entered into a mutual consent-to-use agreement with Victoria's Secret. The agreement allowed Victoria's Secret to use the trademark DREAM ANGELS in connection with the marketing of various personal care products. As part of that agreement, Victoria's Secret paid Airs International $25,000 per year. The agreement was renewable yearly, at the election of Victoria's Secret.

In 2000, while the consent-to-use agreement with Victoria's Secret was still in effect, Stephen Marcus, the principal of Airs International, assigned the Airs family of trademarks, which included ANGEL DREAMS,1 to Mine Hakim. In May 2002, the California Secretary of State's office suspended Airs International's corporate status. Litigation over the ownership of these marks ensued between Marcus, Hakim, and their agents and purported transferees of the family of marks. Airs International was not a party to that litigation. Because the district court determined the transfers were made to defraud creditors, it enjoined all parties to the litigation, including Marcus and Hakim, from asserting any rights superior to any other parties' use of rights in the Airs family of trademarks. The court also ordered cancellation of any registered marks covering the Airs family of marks in any of the parties' names. This court affirmed the district court's order and stated that Airs International had a senior claim to the marks. Airs Fragrance Products, Inc. v. Clover Gifts, Inc., 395 Fed.Appx. 482, 485 (9th Cir.2010).

During the litigation, Victoria's Secret made its contractual payments into an escrow account. In 2008, Victoria's Secret ceased making payments and withdrew the funds from the escrow account. In late 2007, Victoria's Secret applied for trademark registration for eight DREAM ANGELS marks; the trademark office granted the registrations.

In 2011, Marcus revived Airs International and attempted to transfer all of its common law rights in the ANGEL DREAMS mark to the newly formed Airs Aromatics, LLC. Marcus is the sole member of Airs Aromatics. On June 2, 2011, Airs Aromatics filed a complaint against Victoria's Secret that alleged Victoria's Secret had breached the consent-to-use agreement and the associated implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Airs Aromatics sought a declaratory judgment, finding that Victoria's Secret had breached the consent-to-use agreement and cancelling the trademark registrations based on a likelihood of confusion. Victoria's Secret moved to dismiss the first amended complaint on a variety of grounds, including Airs Aromatics' failure to sufficiently plead the continuous usage of the ANGEL DREAMS mark that would establish its common law ownership.

On November 28, 2011, the district court granted the motion orally on the record after a hearing. The district court held that Airs Aromatics lacked standing to pursue its trademark cancellation claim as it had not adequately alleged non-abandonment of its ANGEL DREAMS trademark. The district court also dismissed the claims based on the consent-to-use agreement after determining that the alleged breaches of the consent-to-use agreement did not breach the actual terms. The district court subsequently entered a written order dismissing the case with prejudice. Airs Aromatics appealed the dismissal of its claim for cancellation of trademarks or, alternatively, that it was dismissed with prejudice.

We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint. Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.2012). We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of leave to amend a complaint. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010).

II

Because Airs Aromatics has appealed only the dismissal of its trademark cancellation claim, the first question we must decide is whether that claim would provide an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction on remand standing alone. We conclude that it would not.

Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, gives district courts the power to order the cancellation of a trademark registration “in any action involving a registered mark.” In dictum, we have previously given contrasting interpretations of whether this section provides an independent basis of jurisdiction for cancellation claims. In Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc., we did not dismiss a declaratory relief claim of non-infringement as moot based on the defendant's offer of a covenant not to sue. 223 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.2000). We noted that even dismissal of the declaratory relief claim would “not have mooted [the] separate request for cancellation of [the trademarks] [as] [t]he trademark cancellation count is separate from the declaratory judgment count in the complaint and does not appear to be obviously meritless.” Id. This interpretation was criticized by the Second Circuit, which stated that “the Ninth Circuit in Bancroft failed to consider the language in § 1119 that renders that section remedial, not jurisdictional. Accordingly, we find its opinion unpersuasive.” Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 99 (2d Cir.2011) cert. granted on other grounds, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 24, 183 L.Ed.2d 674 (2012) and aff'd, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013).

In a subsequent case, Tillamook Country Smoker, Inc. v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Ass'n, we denied a counterclaim for trademark infringement due to laches. 465 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir.2006). Cancellation of a trademark registration was sought as part of the counterclaim. Id. As a prelude to evaluating the claim, we stated that Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, permits district courts to resolve these subsidiary registration disputes when joined with an infringement claim.” Id.

The plain language of Section 37 states that cancellation is available in “any action involving a registered mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1119. This language specifies that cancellation may only be sought if there is already an ongoing action that involves a registered mark; it does not indicate that a cancellation claim is available as an independent cause of action. Furthermore, each circuit to directly address this statutory language has held that it “creates a remedy for trademark infringement rather than an independent basis for federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 cases
  • Calm Ventures LLC v. Newsom
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • July 13, 2021
    ...district court may dismiss a complaint without leave to amend if amendment would be futile." Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. , 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Gardner v. Martino , 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (findi......
  • Copperhead Agric. Prods. v. KB AG Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • September 24, 2019
    ...plaintiff] to have standing to seek cancellation of the [trademark] registrations."); Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt, Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 587-600 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal of § 1119 cancellation claim where the plaintiff maintained no other ong......
  • Ky. Mist Moonshine, Inc. v. Univ. of Ky.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • June 23, 2016
    ...See Heydon v. MediaOne of Se. Mich., Inc., 327 F.3d 466, 470 (6th Cir.2003).12 See also Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.2014) (cancellation claim is not an independent cause of action); Ditri v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affili......
  • Casavelli v. Johanson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • August 14, 2020
    ...Cir. 2004). Nonetheless, leave to amend should be denied if amendment would be futile. See Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Op. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 2014).III. ANALYSIS The Amended Complaint includes eight causes of action. (Doc. 14). Defendants seek......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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