The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, District Judge
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT SYNOPSIS
Defendant, Kehm Oil Co., filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs, Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC and Chevron U.S.A., Inc., pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 5). Plaintiffs have filed a Brief in Opposition. (Docket No. 7). As set forth more fully below, after careful consideration of the Motion and related filings, said Motion (Docket No. 5) is denied.
Defendant is conducting business at four locations ("the Properties") which once operated as authorized TEXACO - branded service stations. By June 30, 2006, Defendant was no longer selling or supplying authentic TEXACO products and was no longer an authorized licensee of the Texaco marks, owned by Chevron Intellectual Property LLC. Chevron U.S.A. is the primary licensee of the same. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant continued to use Texaco marks and trade dress through May of 2010. As a result, Plaintiffs filed this action.
The Complaint contains seven counts:
Count I - Infringement of Federally Registered Trademarks, 15 U.S.C. §1114 Count II - Infringement of Common Law Trademark Rights, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) Count III - Infringement of Common Law Trademark Rights - Trade Dress, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
Count IV - Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)
Count V - Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(A)
Count VI - Violation of Pennsylvania Trademark Act, 54 Pa. C.S. §1101, et seq. Count VII - Violation of Pennsylvania Common Law of Unfair Competition. (Docket No. 1). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the entire case. (Docket No. 5). The briefing for the same is complete and the issues are now ripe for review.
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When deciding whether to grant or deny a 12(b)(6) motion the Supreme Court has held:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff=s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative ...