503.02    Nature of Motion

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a test solely of the legal sufficiency of a complaint. [ Note 1.] In order to withstand such a motion, a complaint need only allege such facts as would, if proved, establish that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought, that is, that (1) the plaintiff has an entitlement to a statutory cause of action to bring the proceeding (formerly referred to as "standing"), see TBMP § 309.03(b), and (2) a valid ground exists for denying the registration sought (in the case of an opposition), or for canceling the subject registration (in the case of a cancellation proceeding). [ Note 2.] To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." [ Note 3.] In particular, the claimant must allege well-pleaded factual matter and more than "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." [ Note 4.]

Therefore, a plaintiff served with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted need not, and should not respond by submitting proofs in support of its complaint. Whether a plaintiff can actually prove its allegations is a matter to be determined not upon motion to dismiss, but rather at final hearing or upon summary judgment, after the parties have had an opportunity to submit evidence in support of their respective positions. [ Note 5.]

In Board proceedings, there are certain facts not subject to proof – such as the filing date, filing basis, publication date and applicant’s name in an application that is the subject of an opposition proceeding – that the Board may consider when a party has filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). [ Note 6.]

Whenever the sufficiency of any complaint has been challenged by a motion to dismiss, it is the duty of the Board to examine the complaint in its entirety, construing the allegations therein so as to do justice, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e), to determine whether it contains any allegations, which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. [ Note 7.]

For a further discussion regarding the elements of a complaint, see TBMP § 309.03(a)(2).

NOTES:

 1.   Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems Inc., 988 F.2d 1157, 26 USPQ2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1993); DrDisabilityQuotes.com, LLC v. Charles Krugh, 2021 USPQ2d 262, at *4 (TTAB 2021); Covidien LP v. Masimo Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1696, 1697 (TTAB 2014); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriguez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1874 (TTAB 2011); Bayer Consumer Care Ag v. Belmora LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1587, 1590 (TTAB 2009), (quoting, Fair Indigo LLC v. Style Conscience, 85 USPQ2d 1536, 1538 (TTAB 2007)); Space Base Inc. v. Stadis Corp., 17 USPQ2d 1216, 1218 (TTAB 1990); Consolidated Natural Gas Co. v. CNG Fuel Systems, Ltd., 228 USPQ 752, 753 (TTAB 1985).

 2.   Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377, 47 USPQ2d 1752, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 188 (CCPA 1982); DrDisabilityQuotes.com, LLC v. Charles Krugh, 2021 USPQ2d 262, at *4 (TTAB 2021); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriguez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1874 (TTAB 2011); Bayer Consumer Care Ag v. Belmora LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1587, 1590 (TTAB 2009); Cineplex Odeon Corp. v. Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theaters, 56 USPQ2d 1538, 1539 (TTAB 2000); Kelly Services Inc. v. Greene’s Temporaries Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1460, 1462 (TTAB 1992); Hartwell Co. v. Shane, 17 USPQ2d 1569, 1570 (TTAB 1990); Consolidated Natural Gas Co. v. CNG Fuel Systems, Ltd., 228 USPQ 752, 753 (TTAB 1985); Intersat Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, 226 USPQ 154, 156 (TTAB 1985); Springs Industries, Inc. v. Bumblebee Di Stefano Ottina & C.S.A.S., 222 USPQ 512, 514 (TTAB 1984).

 3.   Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (retiring the pleading standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) that dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if it appears certain that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that could be proved in support of its claim). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plausibility standard applies to all federal civil claims); DrDisabilityQuotes.com, LLC v. Charles Krugh, 2021 USPQ2d 262, at *5 (TTAB 2021); Caymus Vineyards v. Caymus Medical Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1519, 1522 (TTAB 2013) (considering plausibility); Dragon Bleu (SARL) v. VENM, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1925, 1926 (TTAB 2014) (same); Doyle v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (TTAB 2012) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriguez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1874 (TTAB 2011) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)).

 4.   Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). See, e.g., Dragon Bleu (SARL) v. VENM, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1925, 1926 (TTAB 2014) (motion to dismiss applicant’s fraud, non-use and abandonment counterclaims granted); Covidien LP v. Masimo Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1696, 1697 (TTAB 2014).

 5.   Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems Inc., 988 F.2d 1157, 26 USPQ2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Covidien LP v. Masimo Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1696, 1697 n.3 (TTAB 2014).

 6.   Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Precision Formulations LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1251, 1256 (TTAB 2009). In Compagnie, the Board noted the difference between the above-noted objective facts, not subject to proof, and the allegations made in an application, such as dates of first use and first use in commerce, and allegations relative to acquired distinctiveness, that are not objective facts, but are subject to proof in an inter partes proceeding.

 7.   IdeasOne Inc. v. Nationwide Better Health, 89 USPQ2d 1952, 1953 (TTAB 2009); Fair Indigo LLC v. Style Conscience, 85 USPQ2d 1536, 1539 (TTAB 2007) ("under the notice pleading rules applicable to this proceeding opposer is only required to state a valid claim."); Cineplex Odeon Corp. v. Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theaters, 56 USPQ2d 1538, 1539 (TTAB 2000); Intellimedia Sports Inc. v. Intellimedia Corp., 43 USPQ2d 1203, 1205 (TTAB 1997); Miller Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1711, 1711 (TTAB 1993); Kelly Services Inc. v. Greene’s Temporaries Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1460, 1462 (TTAB 1992); Delta Tire Corp. v. Sports Car Club of America, Inc., 186 USPQ 431, 432 (TTAB 1975); National Semiconductor Corp. v. Varian Associates, 184 USPQ 62, 64 (TTAB 1974).