5/20/2016

MY HEALTH, INC. v. General Electric Company, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2015 - Google Scholar

MYHEALTH,INC.,Plaintiff,
v.
GENERALELECTRICCOMPANY,Defendant.
No.15cv80jdp.
UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,W.D.Wisconsin.
December28,2015.

OPINION&ORDER
JAMESD.PETERSON,DistrictJudge.
MyHealth,Inc.allegesthatGeneralElectricCompanyinfringesitsfederallyregisteredtrademark,MYHEALTH.(Thecourt
willuseallcapitalstorefertothemarkand"MyHealth"torefertotheplaintiff.)MyHealthusesMYHEALTHinconnection
withitspatientmonitoringsoftwareandrelatedservices.GEusesMYHEALTHonasectionofitswebsitethatprovides
healthandbenefitsinformationtoGEemployees.Asitmusttostateatrademarkinfringementclaim,MyHealthalleges:(1)
thatithaspriorityofrightstoMYHEALTH,and(2)thatGE'suseofthetermposesalikelihoodofconfusion.
Inresponse,GEclaimsthatitwasfirsttouseMYHEALTH,which,ifproven,woulddefeatMyHealth'scaseagainstGE
entirely,notwithstandingMyHealth'sfederalregistration.Thiswouldappeartobeafactbaseddefensemoreappropriately
addressedatsummaryjudgment.ButGEmovestodismissMyHealth'scomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhich
reliefmaybegranted,pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6).Dkt.12.Sothefundamentalquestionhereis
whetherthecourtmaydecidethepriorityissueonamotiontodismiss.
GEcontendsthatthecourtmayresolvetheissueatthisstage.First,GEcontendsthatitswebsiteisadocument
specificallyreferredtointhecomplaint,soitisincorporatedbyreferencebyMyHealth'scomplaint.Then,accordingtoGE,
thecourtmaytakejudicialnoticeofthehistoricalcontentoftheGEwebsitebasedonprintoutsfromtheInternetArchive,
whichGEsubmitsinsupportofitsmotion.
ThecourtwilldenyGE'smotion.GE'swebsiteisnotasimpledocumentthatcanbeincorporatedbyreferenceintothe
complaint.Awebsite,particularlyonelikeGE's,isadynamiclibraryofdocuments.Regardless,asnapshotofamomentin
time,whichisalltheInternetArchivecanprovide,doesnotestablishthecontinuoususeforparticularpurposesthatGE
mustshowtoestablishpriorityoverMyHealth'srights.AndthecourtwillnottakejudicialnoticeoftheInternetArchive
pagestoshowthehistoricalcontentoftheGEwebsite.TheweightofauthorityinthiscircuitholdsthatInternetArchive
evidenceisnotamenabletojudicialnotice.
GEalsocontendsthatitsuseofMYHEALTHposesnolikelihoodofconfusion.Butthatissue,too,willrequirefactual
development.GEmayhavearobustdefense,butthecourtwillnotdecidetheissuewithoutallowingMyHealththe
opportunitytodeveloptheevidencetosupportitscase.

ALLEGATIONSOFFACT
Whenevaluatingamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted,the"courtmustaccept
thecomplaint'swellpleadedfactualallegationsastrueanddrawreasonableinferencesfromthoseallegationsinthe
plaintiff'sfavor."TransitExp.,Inc.v.Ettinger,246F.3d1018,1023(7thCir.2001).Accordingly,thecourttakesthefollowing
factsfromMyHealth'scomplaint:
MyHealth'sfounder,MichaelE.Eiffert,MD,usedtoworkfortheUniversityofRochesterdevelopinghealthcaretechnology.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9347379591479797640

1/5

5/20/2016

MY HEALTH, INC. v. General Electric Company, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2015 - Google Scholar

Eiffertandacolleague,LisaC.Schwartz,developedandpatentedapatientmonitoringsystem.Eiffertlefttheuniversity
andfoundedMyHealthtomarketandlicensethesystemtohealthcareandtechnologycompanies.
MyHealthfirstusedthemarkMYHEALTHonApril17,2008.OnMay7,2008,itappliedforfederalregistrationofthemark
forusewithpatientmonitoringsoftwareanddevicesandrelatedconsulting.TheregistrationissuedNovember10,2009,
andachievedincontestablestatusonDecember3,2014.
MyHealthallegesthatGEusesthemarkMYHEALTHonitswebsite,http://www.ge.com/myhealth,toinduceits21,000
Wisconsinemployeestouseitsproductsandservices.MyHealthallegesthatGE'susecreatesalikelihoodofconfusion
andthatGEisattemptingtocapitalizeonthereputationandgoodwillthatMyHealthhascultivated.
MyHealthallegesmultiplecountsarisingfromthissetofcorefacts:onecountoftrademarkinfringementunderthe
LanhamAct,15U.S.C.1114and1125onecountoffalseadvertisingundertheLanhamAct,15U.S.C.1125(a)one
countoftrademarkinfringementinviolationofWis.Stat.132.033(1)onecountofcommonlawtrademarkinfringement
andonecountofunfaircompetitionunderWisconsinstatelaw.
GEintroducesadditionalfactsinsupportofitsmotiontodismiss.Althoughthecourtconcludesthatitwouldbeimproperto
considerthesefactsonaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,GEcontendsthatitusedMYHEALTHonitswebsiteatleastas
earlyasNovember25,2005,toprovidebenefitsinformationtoitsemployeesandretirees.
ThecourthassubjectmatterjurisdictionoverMyHealth'sLanhamActclaimspursuantto28U.S.C.1331and1338.
ThecourtmayexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverMyHealth'sremainingstatelawclaims,pursuantto28U.S.C.
1367(a),becausethoseclaimsaresorelatedtoMyHealth'sLanhamActclaimsthattheyformpartofthesamecaseor
controversy.

ANALYSIS
AmotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12(b)(6)teststhecomplaint'slegalsufficiencyitisnotanopportunityforthecourtto
findfactsorweighevidence.Tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted,acomplaintneedonlyprovidea"shortand
plainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief."Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).Rule8"doesnotrequire
`detailedfactualallegations,'butitdemandsmorethananunadorned,thedefendantunlawfullyharmedmeaccusation."
Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007)).Acomplaint
mustcontain"morethanlabelsandconclusions,andaformulaicrecitationoftheelementsofacauseofactionwillnotdo[.]
...Factualallegationsmustbeenoughtoraisearighttoreliefabovethespeculativelevel[.]"Twombly,550U.S.at555
(internalcitationsandquotationmarksomitted).
Onitsface,MyHealth'scomplaintplainlystatesaclaimfortrademarkinfringement.ButGEcontendsthatbecausethe
complaintreferencesGE'swebsite,thecomplaintnecessarilyincorporatespreviousversionsofthatwebsite,which
demonstratethatGEisthesenioruserand,asaresult,defeatMyHealth'sclaims.AccordingtoGE,MyHealth'scomplaint
doesnotplausiblyallege:(1)thatMyHealthhasprotectabletrademarkrightsagainstGE,becauseGEisthesenioruser
or(2)thatGE'suseislikelytocauseconfusionamongconsumers.Dkt.12.Thecourtwillnotreadthecomplainttoinclude
thehistoryoftheGEwebsite,anditwilldenyGE'smotiontodismiss.

A.TrademarkinfringementundertheLanhamAct
"ToprevailonaLanhamActclaim,aplaintiffmustestablishthat(1)[its]markisprotectable,and(2)thedefendant'suseof
themarkislikelytocauseconfusionamongconsumers."Packmanv.Chi.TribuneCo.,267F.3d628,638(7thCir.2001).

1.Priority
MyHealthallegesthatithasanincontestablefederalregistrationforMYHEALTHinahealthcarerelatedfieldandthatGE
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9347379591479797640

2/5

5/20/2016

MY HEALTH, INC. v. General Electric Company, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2015 - Google Scholar

usesMYHEALTHtopromoteservicesatleastsomewhatrelatedtoMyHealth'sareasofuse.AlthoughMyHealthdoesnot
allegewhenGEbeganusingMYHEALTH,implicitinMyHealth'scomplaintisthecontentionthatitsrightstoMYHEALTH
aresuperiortoGE'sandthat,asaresult,ithasprotectabletrademarkrightsagainstGE.
Afederaltrademarkregistrationaffordsthepresumptiverighttoexclusivenationwideuseofatrademark.15U.S.C.
1115(a).Afterfiveyearsofsubstantiallycontinuousandundisputeduse,aregisteredmarkiseligiblefor"incontestable"
status.Incontestablestatusprovides,subjecttotheprovisionsof15and33(b)oftheLanhamAct,"conclusiveevidence
ofthevalidityoftheregisteredmarkandoftheregistrationofthemark,oftheregistrant'sownershipofthemark,andofthe
registrant'sexclusiverighttousetheregisteredmarkincommerce."15U.S.C.1115(b)seealsoPark`NFly,Inc.v.
DollarPark&Fly,Inc.,469U.S.189,192(1985).Anincontestableregistrationisnotvulnerabletocancellationonthe
groundsthatanotherwasaprioruser.See15U.S.C.1115(b),1064,1065seealsoPark`NFly,469U.S.at195("An
incontestablemarkthatbecomesgenericmaybecanceledatanytimepursuantto14(c).Thatsectionalsoallows
cancellationofanincontestablemarkatanytimeifithasbeenabandoned,ifitisbeingusedtomisrepresentthesourceof
thegoodsorservicesinconnectionwithwhichitisused,orifitwasobtainedfraudulently[.]").Butthatisnottosaythata
seniorusermustsurrenderitsrightstotheownerofanincontestableregistration.Asenioruserwhocanshowcontinuous
usefrombeforethedateofthefederalregistrationhasandmayaffirmativelyassertcommonlawtrademarkrightsthat
arenotaffectedbythesubsequentregistration.Under15U.S.C.1065,anincontestableregistrationdoesnotprotecta
markthat"infringesavalidrightacquiredunderthelawofanyStateorTerritorybyuseofamarkortradenamecontinuing
fromadatepriortothedateofregistration[.]"Anotherwaytoputitisthattheregistrationisincontestable,buttherightto
usethemark,andtherighttopreventothersfromdoingso,isnotnecessarilyabsolute.
Initsmotiontodismiss,GEcontendsthatitisthesenioruserandthatithascommonlawrightsthatMyHealth's
subsequentregistrationcannottrump,evenifthatregistrationhasachievedincontestablestatus.Thecourtmayconsider
thispriorityofuseissuenow,GEcontends,becausethecomplaintincorporatesinformationconcerningGE'ssenioruse
i.e.,historicalscreenshotsofitswebsite.Insupportofitsmotion,GEhassubmittedseveralscreenshotsofitsallegedly
infringingwebsitefromasfarbackasNovember2005[1]acquiredviatheInternetArchiveor"WaybackMachine"as
allegedlyindisputableproofthatGEuseditsaccusedmarkfirst.TheInternetArchiveprovidesscreenshotsofwebsitesthat
allegedlyshowhowthewebsiteappearedonaparticulardate.GEcontendsthatthescreenshotsshouldbedeemedtobe
partofthecomplaintbecausethecomplaintreferencestheGEwebsite.Inthealternative,GEcontendsthatthecourtcould
simplytakejudicialnoticeofthescreenshots.
WhenevaluatingaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,thecourtmayconsiderdocumentsthatthecomplaintincorporatesby
reference,asGEsuggests.BrownmarkFilms,LLCv.ComedyPartners,682F.3d687,690(7thCir.2012).Thecourtmay
alsoconsiderfactsthatareamenabletojudicialnotice.ButneitheroftheseprinciplesappliestotheWaybackMachine
screenshots.
TheWaybackMachineisathirdpartyarchive.Althoughinformationabouthistoricalwebsitesiscommonlyusedinthissort
oflitigation,itsevidenceisnotsoreliableandselfexplanatorythatitmaybeanappropriatecandidateforjudicialnotice.
TheSeventhCircuithasapprovedofrequiringa"knowledgeable"InternetArchiveemployeetoauthenticateWayback
Machinesubmissionsbeforeacourtconsidersthem.Spechtv.GoogleInc.,747F.3d929,933(7thCir.2014)("[T]he
districtcourtreasonablyrequired...authenticationbysomeonewithpersonalknowledgeofreliabilityofthearchive
servicefromwhichthescreenshotswereretrieved.").Thecourtwillnottakejudicialnoticeofinformationestablishedby
submissionsthatrequireauthentication.Ifproperlyauthenticatedandsupportedwithaffidavits,GEmaysubmitthis
evidenceinsupportofamotionforsummaryjudgment,butitisnotsounequivocallyreliablethatthecourtshouldtake
judicialnoticeofit.
NoristhecourtinclinedtoconsidertheGEwebsitetobeadocumentthatisincorporatedintothecomplaintbyreference.
Theincorporatedbyreferenceprincipleisa"narrowexception"tothegeneralrulethatthecourtwillnotconsiderevidence
outsideofthecomplaintwhenevaluatingaRule12(b)(6)motion,andtheexceptiontypicallyappliestoreferencesto
specific,undisputeddocumentsforexample,acontract.See188LLCv.TrinityIndus.,Inc.,300F.3d730,735(7thCir.
2002).ThecomplaintdoesrefertoGE'swebsite,whichisavailableataspecificdomainname.Butthatwebsiteisnotthe
equivalentofsingledocumentunequivocallyidentifiedandcitedinacomplaint.Awebsite,particularlyacomplexonelike
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9347379591479797640

3/5

5/20/2016

MY HEALTH, INC. v. General Electric Company, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2015 - Google Scholar

GE's,isadynamiccollectionofdocumentsanddatathatchangesovertime.Areferencetothedomainnameatwhichthe
websitecanbefoundisnotareferencetoaspecificdocumentanymorethanareferencetowww.newyorktimes.comisa
referencetoaspecificarticle.ThecomplaintdoesnotreferencethearchivedscreenshotsonwhichGEnowrelies,andthe
courtwillnotconsiderthedocumentsas"incorporatedbyreference."
Asthepartywithoutthefederalregistration,GEbearstheburdenofprovingthatitsuseofMYHEALTHisbothpriorand
continuous.PureImagination,Inc.v.PureImaginationStudios,Inc.,No.03cv6070,2004WL2967446,at*10(N.D.Ill.
Nov.15,2004).MyHealthisnotrequiredtopleadfactssufficienttoanticipateandcounterGE'spriorusedefenses.See
Bauschv.StrykerCorp.,630F.3d546,561(7thCir.2010).EvenifthecourtweretoconsiderGE'sWaybackMachine
evidence,thesimpledemonstrationthatithadsomepriorusewouldnotbeenoughtosustainitsburden.SeeS.C.
Johnson&Son,Inc.v.NutraceuticalCorp.,No.11cv861,2014WL131114,at*10(E.D.Wis.Jan.14,2014)("The
determinationofrightsbetweentwousersofthesamemark,whenonehasafederallyregisteredmark,doesnotsimply
involveadeterminationofwhichpartypresentsevidencetodemonstratethatitwasthefirstuserineachmarketin
question.Rather,thepartywithoutthefederalregistrationmustproveitspriorandcontinuousrightsinamarketthat
preemptstheregistrant'sconstructivenationwiderights.").MyHealthhasplausiblyallegedaprotectableinterestinits
mark,notwithstandingthatGEmaylaterproveanaffirmativedefensebasedonapriority.

2.Likelihoodofconfusion
GEalsocontendsthatMyHealthhasnotplausiblyallegedthatGE'suseislikelytocauseconfusionamongconsumers.
TheSeventhCircuithasidentifiedsevenfactorsthatinformthecourt's"likelihoodofconfusion"analysis:
(1)similaritybetweenthemarksinappearanceandsuggestion
(2)similarityoftheproducts(3)areaandmannerofconcurrentuse(4)degreeofcarelikelytobeexercisedby
consumers(5)strengthoftheplaintiff'smark(6)actualconfusionand(7)intentofthedefendantto"palmoff"hisproduct
asthatofanother.
Packman,267F.3dat643.Courtsbalancethesevenfactors:"[n]osinglefactorisdispositiveandcourtsmayassign
varyingweightstoeachofthefactorsdependingonthefactspresented."CAE,Inc.v.CleanAirEng'g,Inc.,267F.3d660,
678(7thCir.2001).
Whetheraplaintiffhasdemonstratedalikelihoodofconfusionisultimatelyaquestionoflaw,butthelikelihoodofconfusion
factorspresentquestionsoffact.SeeBoseCorp.v.QSCAudioProds.,Inc.,293F.3d1367,1370(Fed.Cir.2002)see
alsoCAE,Inc.,267F.3dat677("Inatrademarkinfringementcase,whetherconsumersarelikelytobeconfusedaboutthe
originofacompany'sproductsisaquestionoffact[.]")."Becausethelikelihoodofconfusiontestisafactintensive
analysis,itordinarilydoesnotlenditselftoamotiontodismiss."SlepToneEntm'tCorp.v.Coyne,41F.Supp.3d707,715
(N.D.Ill.2014)(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted).Thecourt'srolewhenevaluatingaRule12(b)(6)motionto
dismissistodeterminewhetherMyHealthhaspledfactssufficienttonotifyGEofitsclaimsandtoplausiblyallege
likelihoodofconfusionthecourtwillnotweighfacts.
Thecomplaintallegesthefollowingfactsinsupportof"likelihoodofconfusion":thatthemarksarevirtuallyidenticaland
differonlyininsignificantways("MyHealth"versus"myHealth")thatthepartiesmarketsimilarproducts(patentedremote
patientcaretechnologyversuswebsitestofacilitateexchangesbetweenmedicalprofessionalsandpatients)andthatboth
partiesmarkettheirofferingstoconsumersviatheinternet.MyHealthallegesthatpotentiallicenseesandcustomershave
foundGE'sproductsbecauseoftheaccusedmarkandhaveconfusedGE'sofferingswithMyHealth's.MyHealthalleges
thattheaccusedmarkleadsconsumerstobelievethatGEisthesourceofthepatentedtechnologyandservicesMy
Healthoffers.MyHealthallegesattemptedandactualconfusion,becauseGE'swebsiteinvitescustomersto"[g]otothe
mainU.S.myHealthsite"andcreates"theimpressionthatGE'swebsiteisrunandoperatedbyMyHealth."Dkt.1,23.
GEalsooffersaHealthandWellnessPortal"whichperformsfunctionsandstepsconfusinglysimilartoMyHealth's
patentedtechnology."Id.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9347379591479797640

4/5

5/20/2016

MY HEALTH, INC. v. General Electric Company, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2015 - Google Scholar

MyHealth'sallegations,assumedtrueandconstruedinMyHealth'sfavor,aresufficienttoplaceGEonnoticeoftheclaims
againstitandtoplausiblyallegethattheaccusedmarkislikelytocauseconfusionamongconsumers,toMyHealth's
detriment.
GEessentiallyinvitesthecourttoweighandresolvequestionsoffact.Butthecourtwilladdressthosequestionsat
summaryjudgmentortrial.Atthe12(b)(6)stage,MyHealthisnotrequiredtoprovethatGE'suseislikelytocause
confusionitissufficientthatMyHealthhasplacedGEonnoticeofthenatureofitsclaimsandsupportedthemwith
plausibleallegations.Infact,GE'sbriefingmakesitabundantlyclearthatitisfullyawareoftheclaimsagainstitandhas
alreadybegunmountingitsdefense.AndMyHealthhasplausiblyallegedthatGEusedtheaccusedmarkinamanner
likelytoconfuseconsumers.

B.MyHealth'sremainingclaims
GEcontendsthatMyHealth'sfailuretoplausiblyallegethatithasprotectabletrademarkrightstoassertagainstGEand
thatGE'sallegedlyinfringinguseislikelytoconfuseconsumersisfataltoallofMyHealth'sclaims.Becausethecourthas
determinedthatMyHealth'scomplaintallegesfactssufficienttoestablishtheseelements,however,andbecauseGEdoes
notofferanyadditionalargumentsspecifictoMyHealth'sremainingclaims,thecourtwilldenyGE'smotionwithrespectto
MyHealth'sremainingclaims.

ORDER
ITISORDEREDthatdefendantGeneralElectricCompany'smotiontodismiss,Dkt.12,isDENIED.
[1]ThescreenshotsaredatedNovember25,2005November30,2005December1,2005October14,2006April15,2007June19,
2007November30,2007April11,2008February9,2009andFebruary11,2009.Dkt.161.

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9347379591479797640

5/5