SI03, Inc. v. Musclegen Research, Inc.

Full title: SI03, INC., Plaintiff, v. MUSCLEGEN RESEARCH, INC., et al. Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Date published: May 13, 2020

Facts

This is an action between competitors who manufacture and sell protein powder to consumers. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) asserts claims against Defendant Musclegen (“Defendant”) and Does 1–10 alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count I); unfair competition under Missouri common law (Count II); and unjust enrichment under Missouri common law (Count III). 

Issue

Decision

For the reasons discussed above, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint, and will dismiss Count III without prejudice. The Court will separately issue an order requiring the parties to file a Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Musclegen, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s common law unjust enrichment claim in Count III, which will be dismissed without prejudice, and DENIED as to Counts I and II. [ECF No. 63]

It is further ordered that the defendant shall file its answer to the complaint within the time permitted by Rule 12(a)(4).

An appropriate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Also, Read

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 − 4 =