Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Opinion Corp. d/b/a PissedConsumer.com's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5), Plaintiff Amerigas Propane, L.P.'s Response in Opposition (Docket No. 7), and Defendant's Reply Brief (Docket No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and VII is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendant's Motion to
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Opinion Corp. d/b/a PissedConsumer.com's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5), Plaintiff Amerigas Propane, L.P.'s Response in Opposition (Docket No. 7), and Defendant's Reply Brief (Docket No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and VII is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendant's Motion to D..
More
ORDER
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge.
AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Opinion Corp. d/b/a PissedConsumer.com's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5), Plaintiff Amerigas Propane, L.P.'s Response in Opposition (Docket No. 7), and Defendant's Reply Brief (Docket No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and VII is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege the use of "AMERIGAS" as a trademark is DENIED;
b. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that its nominative use of Plaintiff's trademark is fair is DENIED;
c. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Complaint fails to allege likelihood of confusion is DENIED;
d. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the doctrine of initial interest confusion does not apply is DENIED;
e. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss any claim premised on a theory of contributory infringement is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is precluded from seeking to hold Defendant contributorily liable for the claims made in Counts I, II, III, IV, and VII;
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230 is DENIED.
