Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mixture Labs owns the BEVVY trademark and licenses it to Bevvy, Inc., which operates bevvy.co. The public-facing site offers alcohol-related media, user uploads, beverage and recipe collections, social-following features, advertising, commissions, and sponsored content. Mixture Labs alleged that Bevvy Limited began operating a similar website and app at bevvy.com and sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Bevvy Limited counterclaimed to cancel Mixture Labs’ registration for nonuse and abandonment. It acknowledged that Mixture Labs operated the website but argued that maintaining and organizing an online community was activity for the owner’s own benefit, not a service provided to the public. Mixture Labs moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the counterclaims relied on a mistaken legal premise and lacked supporting facts.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Rita F. Lin dismissed the cancellation counterclaims with leave to amend. The Lanham Act permits cancellation when a registered mark has never been used in commerce for the listed services, or when use has stopped with an intent not to resume. Mixture Labs’ registration covered Class 42 computer services, so the question was whether operating its website could qualify as providing a service rather than merely serving its own internal interests.
The court concluded that a public website can provide a service when it benefits members of the public. That principle tracks the consumer-protection purpose of trademark law and prior decisions distinguishing public-facing offerings from activities confined to a company’s own internal constituency. Bevvy Limited’s own pleading said Mixture Labs operated a website under the mark, yet offered no concrete facts showing that the site failed to benefit users or that use of the mark had stopped. Bare assertions of nonuse and abandonment simply repeated legal elements and did not make cancellation plausible. Because additional facts might cure the problem, the court allowed Bevvy Limited to amend rather than terminating the counterclaims permanently.
Key Takeaways
- A public-facing website may itself constitute a service for Lanham Act purposes when it delivers functionality or benefits to users beyond the trademark owner’s internal operations.
- A cancellation claimant cannot plead nonuse or abandonment solely through labels when its own allegations acknowledge ongoing operation under the challenged mark.
- Nonuse and abandonment are distinct theories: abandonment requires discontinued use plus intent not to resume, while nonuse attacks whether qualifying commercial use ever occurred for registered services.
- Detailed allegations about what a site actually does, who receives the benefit, and how use has changed are essential at the pleading stage.
Why It Matters
For California technology businesses, the order highlights the trademark significance of a website’s user-facing functions. A platform is not disqualified as a service merely because the operator also gains advertising, commission, or branding benefits. Registration owners should preserve evidence showing continuous public availability, actual features, user interaction, and revenue activity tied to the mark.
Parties seeking cancellation should investigate the real operation of the service before pleading. Facts such as a dormant site, unavailable functionality, absence of public users, or an intent to discontinue may support a claim; conclusory characterization of an active public platform as self-serving will not. The pleading must connect those facts to the particular services identified in the registration. Because amendment was allowed, the decision narrows the required pleading without finally resolving trademark validity.