A motion to dismiss filed by Uber Technologies Inc. earlier this week said the $250 billion trademark suit filed against it must be dismissed. Uber argued that plaintiff UberRE Inc.’s claims are unripe, that the plaintiff lacks standing, and that the pleading fails to state claims for relief.
By way of background, UberRE, “an innovative temporary travel accommodation and real estate company,” sued Uber in May alleging that the transportation services company is set to release software that will offer competing travel accommodation and real estate services under the confusingly similar “UBER TRAVEL” mark, in contrast to the plaintiff’s own “ÜBER” mark.
The suit claimed that for the last three years, the plaintiff invested money and time in marketing its ÜBER mark globally. Further, and though it engaged Uber concerning its mark and potential partnerships, the defendant filed a trademark application for “UBER TRAVEL” in January.
The complaint said that because of the defendant’s intended foray into the travel business, it is willfully infringing UberRE’s mark and unfairly competing under federal trademark law.
In Thursday’s motion, defendant Uber called the complaint “an assemblage of naked and conclusory allegations.” The motion said that UberRE’s travel and accommodation business is a sham as it is “yet nonexistent” and further that its claims of irreparable injury are baseless.
First, Uber contends that UberRE “does not plead that Uber offers or will imminently offer real estate services,” calling its allegations “bare.” That Uber will release unspecified software at an unspecified time and offer unspecified real estate services, does not suffice for purposes of the federal pleading standard, the motion says.
Second, Uber asserts that UberRE has no claim to its ÜBER mark because it is based on an invalid assignment. The motion points to public records from the Florida Department of State indicating that the assignor still operates the business associated with the ÜBER mark and therefore has not given it over to UberRE.
Lastly, Uber faults UberRE for failing to state a claim with respect to travel services. “Plaintiff does not plead, and does not have, priority over Uber with respect to travel services and does not allege likelihood of confusion between Uber’s use of UBER TRAVEL for travel services and Plaintiff’s alleged rights in ÜBER for real estate services,” the filing says in asking for dismissal.