Amazon Urges Denial of Leave for Second Amended Trademark Infringement Complaint

The U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis should deny the motion for leave of plaintiff Renee Gabet and her company Annie Oakley Enterprises to file a second amended trademark infringement complaint against Amazon, said Amazon’s opposition brief Monday (docket 1:22-cv-02246). Gabet and her company allege Amazon ignored the infringing conduct of its third-party sellers (see 2302160029). The plaintiffs “lack good cause for filing their motion” more than two weeks after the April 21 deadline for filing motions for leave to amend pleadings, said Amazon. Their late motion and proposed second amended complaint late motion are “a clear attempt to improperly add thousands of frivolous claims, including claims against many products plaintiffs knew about more than two years ago, before they even filed the original complaint,” it said. There’s “no good cause for waiting so long,” it said. The court should also deny the motion because the plaintiffs “are proceeding in bad faith,” it said. Their “obvious motive” isn’t to include thousands of new claims so the parties and the court can adjudicate them, “but instead to harass Amazon and demand an increased settlement,” it said. Each assertion that a different product family infringes a trademark “is a separate claim of trademark infringement,” said Amazon. Each new claim arises “from a different set of operative facts,” requiring “independent application of the seven-part likelihood-of-confusion test for trademark infringement,” it said. The plaintiffs would have the court try “literally thousands of infringement issues as to these distinct products before a single jury, perhaps in an attempt to avoid paying filing fees to redress the individual issues presented as to each allegedly infringing product,” it said. The court should also deny granting the plaintiffs leave because their proposed amendment is “futile,” it said. The proposed second amended complaint “includes scores of newly accused products that could not possibly infringe,” it said. Their late-filed motion also appears “calculated” to further delay resolution of Amazon’s motion to dismiss their first amended complaint, which Amazon filed more than a year ago, it said.