Veritas Farms Inc. filed a motion on October 14 asking the District of Colorado to dismiss an amended trademark complaint filed against it by plaintiff Carrick-Harvest, LLC, which does business under the name Veritas Fine Cannabis. The defendant claims that the “unregistered common law” trademarks cited by the plaintiff are not sufficient for the relief they are seeking.
The defendant previously filed a motion to dismiss the legal action in late August, and claimed that the plaintiff failed to state a claim, did not have enough facts to support its claims, and did not possess the common law trademarks. At the beginning of October, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, leading the court to deny the plaintiff’s motion.
The new motion to dismiss filed last week had many of the same allegations as the first one, specifically that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under the Federal laws. The plaintiff reportedly filed claims of false designation and unfair competition based on the Lanham Act, violations of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, common law unfair competition, and declaratory judgment of superior trademark rights.
The defendant says in the new motion that the plaintiff served the amended complaint “instead of responding to substantive arguments in the Defendant’s motion” and that the amended complaint does not “plead facts for several elements of the claims alleged” by the plaintiff. It also says the complaint “pleads Plaintiffs out of court” by showing that Carrick-Harvest does not have the common law trademarks they claimed.
The common law trademarks claimed by the plaintiff are reportedly only used in Colorado where Carrick-Harvest does business. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s activities inside and outside the state infringe on its rights, the defendant says this is not possible since the plaintiff’s business is only in Colorado.
Veritas Farms proffers that the complaint should be dismissed by the court with prejudice, stating that “it is clear from (the) Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim in its Amended Complaint that any additional amendments would be futile.”