Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, CityMoms, Inc. (“CityMoms”) incorporated in the State of Delaware, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of “CityMoms” does not infringe the rights of Defendant, theCityMoms Greater Indianapolis LLC (“theCityMoms”) of Indianapolis,
According to the complaint, CityMoms conducts business online and offers, among other things, a mobile app and software system “that helps local businesses book unused spots in their kids’ activities programs and family events.” TheCityMoms is alleged to provide “a sisterhood for the modern mom” that offers a support network for moms, events and activities, and an official membership. CityMoms claims that theCityMoms has threatened to take action against it for trademark infringement and unfair competition and has interfered with CityMoms’ ability to sell its app to a third party.
CityMoms’ services are alleged to have begun in 2012 with theCityMoms filing its application for the ‘132 Registration on January 2, 2014. This application was given Serial No. 86156171 (the “‘171 Application”) and was filed for the goods and services of International Class 041, which includes “Educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational and educational speakers; Organizing, arranging, and conducting playdates, mom-only evenings, open play times, shopping parties, fitness classes, volunteering and cultural events”. The ‘171 Application was submitted with a statement by Melissa Kondritz and Jeanine Bobenmoyer that “theCityMoms” was used in commerce and related with the company at least as early as March 1, 2013. However, CityMoms claims that the domain name http://thecitymoms.org/ was not registered until March 8, 2013 and therefore could not have existed prior to that date. CityMoms further claims it has found no evidence theCityMoms provided motivational and educational speakers on or before January 2, 2014 as part of its business and therefore, the ‘171 Application was filed with “willfully false material statements that constituted fraud” and should make the ‘132 Registration invalid and unenforceable.
CityMoms is first seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not infringing theCityMoms’ ‘132 Registration and that it is not participating in unfair competition. Next, CityMoms is seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘132 Registration is invalid and unenforceable, and seeks a judgment ordering the USPTO to cancel the ‘132 Registration. Third, CityMoms pleads in the alternative a claim for federal unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common laws of the States of California and Indiana. Alternatively, CityMoms is seeking relief for unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Finally, CityMoms is seeking relief for intentional interference with contractual relations as it is currently attempting to sell its business.
The case was assigned to Chief Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District and assigned Case 1:19-cv-04377-JMS-TAB.