IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Cal.: Claims of trademark infringement, dilution, cyberpiracy and unfair competition against a floral wire service company dismissed, (Sep 15, 2025)

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

District court dismissed the trademark owner’s claims for failure to state a claim against the floral wire service company.

The federal district court in Sacramento granted a floral wire service company’s motion to dismiss a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, cyberpiracy, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The district court found that the trademark owner failed to state a claim against the floral wire service company (Gibralter, LLC v. DMS Flowers, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)).

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, sell florals under the tradename “Bloomingful Flowers.” Teleflora, LLC (Teleflora) 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.

The plaintiffs asserted nine claims against Teleflora and DMS Flowers defendants, including under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition; state trademark dilution and injury to business reputation; violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACCPA) - Cyberpiracy; vicarious trademark infringement; and contributory trademark infringement.

Teleflora argued that the FAC failed to specify which claims and allegations refer to which particular defendants, and illustrate the absurdity in the plaintiffs’ attempt to argue that the defendants collectively began to infringe on the Mark when DMS Flowers defendants registered the “Bloomingful” name as an entity with the Secretary of State as “Teleflora did not and could not have been involved in DMS Defendants’ entity registration.” Further, Teleflora argued that the plaintiffs’ state law claims failed because, aside from failing to state a claim, they are barred by the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes providers of interactive computer services (like Teleflora) from content created by third parties like the DMS Defendants. Therefore, Teleflora moved to dismiss the FAC of the plaintiffs.

Trademark infringement. The district court noted that the primary purpose of Rule 8(a)(2) is to ensure the pleading gives a defendant ‘fair notice of what plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’ in order to enable the defendant to answer and prepare for trial, and to identify the nature of the case. The only material allegations in the FAC addressing Teleflora’s alleged conduct are that Teleflora controlled the content of the ‘estores’ on their ecommerce platform utilized, that it has the power to supervise and monitor the infringing content and has the ability to prevent and/or stop the infringing content of the defendants, and that it knew or should have known that Bloomingful Flowers was infringing on the plaintiffs’ Mark. However, these conclusory allegations fail to give Teleflora fair notice of what “use” of the plaintiffs’ Mark it has made that is likely to cause confusion. Thus, the FAC failed to adequately allege a likelihood of confusion on the part of Teleflora. Additionally, there is no allegation that Teleflora itself used the Mark in commerce. Nor do the plaintiffs’ allegations, liberally construed, in alleging Teleflora’s facilitation of DMS Flowers defendants’ infringement based on Teleflora’s control and knowledge support a claim for direct trademark infringement against Teleflora. Therefore, the district court granted Teleflora’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for direct trademark infringement.

Contributory trademark infringement. The district court noted that the FAC did not allege Teleflora intentionally induced DMS Flowers defendants to perpetuate the infringement of the plaintiffs’ Mark and, in opposition to dismissal, the plaintiffs did not advance an inducement theory as the basis for their contributory infringement claim. The FAC also failed to show that Teleflora knew of the specific infringing material of DMS Flowers defendants, as the plaintiffs alleged only that Teleflora knew or should have known that the DMS Flowers defendants were generally infringing on the Mark. Moreover, because the FAC alleged that the plaintiffs’ cease and desist letter was communicated only to DMS Flowers defendants, and not Teleflora, the plaintiffs' allegations of Teleflora’s purported actual or constructive knowledge of the DMS Flower defendants alleged infringed use of the Mark, without more, are conclusory. Thus, the district court found the plaintiffs failed to state a contributory trademark infringement claim against Teleflora.

Vicarious trademark infringement. The district court also found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for vicarious trademark infringement against Teleflora. The plaintiffs’ allegations fall short of alleging that Teleflora has an actual or apparent partnership, authority to bind DMS Flowers defendants in transactions with third parties, or exercise joint ownership or control over the allegedly infringed Mark. At most, the plaintiffs’ allegations demonstrate Teleflora’s type of control is only indirect and does not give Teleflora the right or ability to control the actual infringing activity at issue, particularly the alleged infringing use of the Mark. Other than the plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of control, the plaintiffs have not shown that Teleflora has contracts or agreements with DMS Flowers defendants such that Teleflora is empowered to stop or limit them infringing on the Mark.

Unfair competition. The district court noted that an action under the Lanham Act for unfair competition requires a plaintiff to show the defendant’s use of the same or similar mark would create a likelihood of consumer confusion. Here, the plaintiffs’ FAC failed to state a claim for unfair competition for the same reasons articulated above for the plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim for direct trademark infringement. Accordingly, the district court granted Teleflora’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second claim under the Lanham Act for unfair trademark competition.

Trademark dilution. The district court noted that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that its Mark is famous. The plaintiffs alleged they have promoted the Mark for over five years in both the United States and internationally, which “has become a known symbol of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ products” and that the Mark is registered. Further, the FAC as constructed does not articulate that Teleflora directly used the Mark, and instead merely lumps Teleflora with DMS Flowers defendants in the plaintiffs’ allegations of defendants’ purported infringed use. Therefore, the district court found the plaintiffs’ allegations fall short of the threshold standard required for a federal trademark dilution claim.

State law claims. Finding that the standards of the state law claims mirror the standards required to state a claim for the analogous federal claims, the plaintiffs’ state law claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution fail for the same reasons as the federal claims.

Cyberpiracy. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not establish that Teleflora used, registered, or trafficked in the Mark so there can be no violation of the ACPA. Further, the plaintiffs were unable to state a cybersquatting claim on a theory of secondary liability based on its allegations that Teleflora had control and knowledge of the purported infringed use by DMS Flower defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to state a cybersquatting claim.

Accordingly, the district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

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

Judge: Baker, C.

Attorneys: Laurie Doucet Normandin (LaMont Law) for Gibralter, LLC. Henry Larry Elam, III (Wade Litigation, A.PC) for DMS Flowers, LLC.

Companies: Gibralter, LLC; DMS Flowers, LLC

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews