Garan, Inc. et al v. Med For America, Inc. et al

On December 3, 2021, Garan, Inc. and Garan Services Corp. (collectively, “Garan” or “Plaintiffs”), represented by Adam S. Sieff of Davis Wright Tremain LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Med for America, Inc. dba Dreamfields and Dreamfields Brands, Inc. (“Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages along with costs among other relief for the trademark dilution of Plaintiff. The case was filed in the United States District Court in the Central District of California.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “The GARANIMALS brand has been a fixture in American culture since the early 1970s, when Garan first coined the fanciful and arbitrary GARANIMALS trademark. GARANIMALS was founded on a simple but unique concept: to help parents affordably dress their young children in comfortable clothing that is easy to mix and match. The GARANIMALS brand is sold through more than 4,700 Walmart stores across the United States, where 90 percent of the population resides within 10 miles of a Walmart store.”

Plaintiffs further alleged that, “Defendants are using the fanciful and arbitrary GARANIMALS trademark to advertise, promote, distribute, import/export, offer for sale and/or sell cannabis-derived goods under a “Garanimals” name (see images below). These products are illegal for most uses in most states. Defendants’ use thus tarnishes Garan’s goodwill and reputation—as well as the innocent and wholesome nature associated with the GARANIMALS brand (which is child and family friendly)—and also blurs and weakens the public’s association of the GARANIMALS brand and GARANIMALS Marks with GARANIMALS products.”

Plaintiffs also alleged that, “By impermissibly using the GARAMINALS Marks to sell cannabisderived products that are controversial and in some cases illegal, Defendants tarnish and damage the reputation of the GARANIMALS brand by affiliating it with products and conduct that are inconsistent with the wholesome, playful, innocent, and family-friendly sentiments that underlie the GARANIMALS brand, and that provide GARANIMALS products with a significant portion of their market value” and “Defendants’ impermissible use of the GARANIMALS Marks also harms Garan by multiplying the meanings associated with the GARANIMALS Marks, and, as a result, weakening the GARANIMALS Marks’ ability to evoke their original associations. Consumers who become familiar with “Garanimals” as a cannabis-related product will less readily associate the GARANIMALS Marks with the GARANIMALS brand of children’s apparel and toys, and the sentiments that Garan relies upon to market and sell its products.”

There are three claims of relief laid down by Plaintiffs. The first claim is for the alleged trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The second claim is for the alleged Trademark Dilution under California Law under California Business & Professions Code § 14247. The third claim is for the alleged California Unfair Competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiffs requested the court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief along with monetary damages, including restitution and costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, along with any other relief that the court deems just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.