United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Rahim Ali's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
(Doc. 33) and Plaintiffs Roor International BV and Sream,
Inc's response (Doc. 36).
Court recounts the factual background as pled in
Plaintiffs' Complaint, which it must take as true to
decide whether the Complaint states a plausible claim.
See Chandler v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Transp.,
695 F.3d 1194, 1198-99 (11th Cir. 2012). This trademark
infringement case centers on RooR-branded glass water pipes.
Roor owns three USPTO registrations for the RooR word mark,
and Sream is Roor's exclusive licensee in the United
States. They sued Lotus Smoke Shop and its “owne[rs],
manage[rs], and/or operator[s]” Adnan Virani and Rahim
Ali for selling counterfeit products bearing the RooR mark.
(Doc. 1). Roor and Sream dismissed Lotus and Virani. (Doc.
17; Doc. 21). Ali, the sole remaining defendant, moves to
dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 33).
deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court
must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and draw all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. “To survive a motion to dismiss, the
plaintiff's pleading must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted); Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553 (2007). A claim is
facially plausible when the Court can draw a reasonable
inference from the facts pled that the opposing party is
liable for the alleged misconduct. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, the Court engages in a
twostep approach: “When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
urges dismissal because Plaintiffs have not alleged
sufficient facts to hold him liable for Lotus Smoke
Shop's counterfeit sales. An individual can be liable for
a corporation's trademark infringement if he
“actively caused the infringement, as a moving,
conscious force.” ADT LLC v. Alarm Protection Tech.
Fla., LLC, 646 Fed.Appx. 781, 787 (11th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Ali attacks the
Complaint for its “threadbare and conclusory”
allegations that “never distinguish acts between Virani
and Ali.” (Doc. 33 at 3-4).
Complaint alleges that Ali, along with Varani, “owned,
managed, and/or operated” Lotus Smoke Shop, selected
and purchased products for resale, “actively,
knowingly, and intentionally adopted and used” the RooR
marks, and was “a moving, active, and conscious force
behind LOTUS SMOKE SHOP'S infringement.” (Doc. 1 at
3, 10). These allegations, if proven true, are enough to hold
Ali personally liable for Lotus Smoke Shop's infringing
sales. And while a complaint that fails to distinguish claims
against multiple defendants can sometimes be dismissed as a
shotgun pleading, joint pleading is proper when, as here,
each defendant's liability is based on a common factual
scenario. Compare Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir.
2015) with Abbasi v. Bhalodwala, 149
F.Supp.3d 1372, 1376 (M.D. Ga. 2015). Roor and Sream have
plausibly pled that Ali is liable for Lotus Smoke Shop's
it is now
Rahim Ali's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
for Injunctive Relief and Damages (Doc. 33) is
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any ...