Quantcast

Florida dental implant company's case against San Diego dentist transferred to California court

FLORIDA RECORD

Monday, December 23, 2024

Florida dental implant company's case against San Diego dentist transferred to California court

Lawsuits
Trademark 06

MIAMI — A case involving a Florida dental implant services company's allegations that a San Diego dentist infringed its logo design has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. 

According to a May 3 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida filing, defendants Samuel Soon Ho Lee and the International Academy of Dental Implantology, LLC (IDIA) petitioned the court for a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to join a party or motion to transfer venue in regards to a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Implant Seminars, Inc., that alleges infringement of its logo. 

IDIA alleges Lee, a San Diego resident with a private dental implant practice, began infringing its logo in 2015 to market his services in South Florida and throughout the U.S., which has negatively affected IDIA's business. IDIA also says Lee directed the  posting of marketing material on IDIA's Facebook page that redirected its customers in order to "interfere" and "deliberately confuse customers." 


IDIA alleges trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, trademark and unfair competition and it seeks injunctive relief. 

The court noted Lee "targeted Florida consumers," was part of seminars and conferences in the state as well as using a Florida distributor for part of its marketing in the state. It also noted that Lee "adopted the infringing logo" in the state of California and marketing their services from San Diego. 

U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga concluded the Southern District of California was "a proper venue" for the case because the "consumer confusion allegedly occurred in San Diego," which could "exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants" who live in California.  

Altonaga stated the "convenience of parties and witnesses and locus of operative facts" led to the court's decision to transfer the case. 

More News