IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Ca.: Motion to dismiss trademark owner’s second amended complaint granted, (Feb 3, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

District court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to show that the floral wire service company used the plaintiffs’ BLOOMINGFUL trademark.

A federal district court in Sacramento has granted a floral wire service company’s motion to dismiss all claims against it in a second amended complaint (SAC) with prejudice. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ SAC contained the same deficiencies identified in the district court’s dismissing the plaintiffs’ FAC (Gibralter, LLC v. DMS Flowers, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00174-CD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2026)).

Background. Gibralter, LLC (Gibralter) owned the trademark registration for “BLOOMINGFUL” (Mark). Daniel Andrade, Samantha Andrade, and Maria Pantoja are owners, business partners, shareholders, members, managers, or other authority figures of DMS Flowers, LLC, the successor in interest to Bloomingful Flowers, (collectively, DMS Flowers defendants) and sell florals under the tradename “Bloomingful Flowers.” Teleflora, LLC (Teleflora) is a limited liability company that is in the business of selling florals from various venders throughout the United States and Canada across its online platform and provides “estores” on their affiliate network to individual and/or corporate flower shops. Gibralter and Divinely, Inc. (collectively, plaintiffs) alleged that the DMS Flowers defendants and Teleflora infringed upon Gibralter’s “BLOOMINGFUL” trademark by using the identical name “Bloomingful Flowers” for their floral business.

On February 6, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the DMS Flowers defendants. On March 27, 2025, the plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint (FAC). On September 11, 2025, the district court granted Teleflora’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ FAC with leave to amend. On October 2, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a SAC against DMS Flowers defendants and Teleflora. Teleflora then filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it in the plaintiffs’ SAC with prejudice. Teleflora contended that because the plaintiffs’ SAC contained the same deficiencies identified in the district court’s dismissing the plaintiffs’ FAC, the district court must dismiss the SAC’s claims against Teleflora with prejudice.

Unfair competition. In the district court’s order, dismissing all claims in the FAC asserted against Teleflora, the district court granted leave to amend the unfair competition claim to the extent the plaintiffs can sufficiently allege that Teleflora “used” the plaintiffs’ MARK to cognizably state an unfair competition claim. However, the plaintiffs’ fourth claim in the SAC, titled “Federal Unfair Competition” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) against Teleflora is pled essentially identical to the second claim in the FAC. Since the plaintiffs did not cure the deficiencies identified from the district court’s previous order on the same claim in failing to sufficiently allege that Teleflora “used” the plaintiffs’ MARK to state an unfair competition claim, and do not provide any meaningful argument to show otherwise, the plaintiffs again failed to state a claim for unfair competition. Thus, the district court granted Teleflora’s motion to dismiss this claim.

Although the plaintiffs’ second claim in the SAC is likewise titled “Federal Unfair Competition” pursuant to § 1125(a) against Teleflora, the claim is pled differently than the deficient fourth claim for relief. In opposing dismissal, the plaintiffs argued that contrary to Teleflora’s contention, the second claim in the SAC is for federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). However, the plaintiffs have not filed any notice of errata regarding the erroneously pled claim, have not moved to amend the SAC to correct the error, and have made no indication of their intent to remedy or inform the court of the error until Teleflora moved to dismiss the SAC. In any event, because the elements for trademark infringement under § 1114(1)(a) rely on the same elements as a claim for unfair competition under § 1125(a), the district court’s analysis of the claim remains the same. Similar to its reasoning and finding that the trademark infringement claim advanced in the FAC was not cognizable, the district court found that the SAC failed to cognizably allege a claim under the Lanham Act for either trademark infringement or unfair competition against Teleflora.

The district court previously found that the FAC’s allegations were conclusory and failed to give Teleflora fair notice of what “use” of the plaintiffs’ MARK Teleflora has made that is likely to cause confusion. Further, the FAC failed to adequately allege a likelihood of confusion on the part of Teleflora and failed to include any allegation that Teleflora itself used the MARK in commerce. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ SAC failed to remedy these deficiencies.

The district court also found that the plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to establish that Teleflora directly used the MARK or that such use is likely to cause confusion, the allegations only illustrated Teleflora’s role in facilitating use of the MARK through its online platform. Therefore, the plaintiffs again failed to show that Teleflora directly used the MARK such that they are unable to support a claim for trademark infringement or unfair competition against Teleflora. Therefore, the district court granted Teleflora’s motion to dismiss the second claim of the plaintiffs’ SAC.

State law claims. The district court noted that because the standards for the state law claims pleaded in the SAC for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL), mirror the standards required to state a claim for the analogous federal claims which the plaintiffs concede are congruent and subject to the same analysis as the corresponding federal law claims, the plaintiffs’ state law claims failed for the same reasons as the federal claims.

The SAC also alleged that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not bar the plaintiffs’ claims against Teleflora because Teleflora actively, routinely, frequently, and aggressively creates, publishes, codes, and/or updates substantial content and placement of content on the floral partner’s estore, i.e., Bloomingful Flowers, and that such content includes the partner’s business name, address, and various content involving that business and that business’s floral products. However, these conclusory allegations failed to show that Teleflora itself created or developed the offending content in whole or in part. At most, the allegations suggest that Teleflora operates the online platform that enables third party floral partners to sell their products through its online partnership program. Thus, the plaintiffs showed that Teleflora operates akin to an “interactive computer service provider” under the CDA rather than a party that creates or develops infringing content outside the ambit of the CDA. Accordingly, the district court granted Teleflora’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ state law claims for failure to state a claim and as barred by the CDA.

Cybersquatting claim. The district court noted that the SAC’s allegation that DMS Flowers defendants transferred the “bloomingfulflower.com” internet domain to Teleflora as part of a hosting/content/marketing solutions package for its e-store, and that Teleflora then included the domain “in their aggressive coding, advertising, and SEO’ing” (e.g., search engine optimization) of the e-store, does not amount to “use” of the domain names. Additionally, the SAC did not allege, nor did the plaintiffs sufficiently show, that Teleflora acted in bad faith in its purported use of the contested domain name. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Violation of Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and, accordingly, the cybersquatting claim was dismissed.

Contributory trademark infringement. The district court also found that in repleading the contributory trademark infringement claim dismissed from the FAC, the plaintiffs again failed to plead facts from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that Teleflora knew of the specific infringing material of DMS Flowers defendants, or should have known that DMS Flowers defendants were generally infringing on the plaintiffs’ MARK. Moreover, because the SAC alleged that the plaintiffs’ cease and desist letter was communicated only to DMS Flowers defendants, and not Teleflora, the plaintiffs’ unsupported allegations of Teleflora’s purported actual or constructive knowledge of the DMS Flower defendants’ alleged infringed use of the MARK, without more, are inadequate. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to state a contributory trademark infringement claim against Teleflora.

Accordingly, the district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00174-CD.

Judge: Baker, C.

Attorneys: Laurie Doucet Normandin (Laurie Doucet Normandin, Attorney at Law) for Gibralter, LLC. Eric Louis Wineinger-Schattl (Wade Litigation, APC) for DMS Flowers, LLC.

Companies: Gibralter, LLC; DMS Flowers, LLC

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews