Sarieddine v. Connected International — Court Dismisses ALIEN Trademark Claims for Failure to Plead Priority of Use

Background

The plaintiff, Sarieddine, owns the ALIEN trademark and uses it in connection with nicotine products. He sued Connected International Inc. and others, alleging that the defendants’ ALIENLABS mark — used for cannabis products — infringes his trademark rights. The case hinges on who used the mark first: under trademark law, the party with priority of use (the senior user) generally has the right to exclude later users of confusingly similar marks.

The court previously dismissed Sarieddine’s original complaint for the same deficiency — failing to adequately plead priority of use. Sarieddine amended his complaint, but the defendants moved to dismiss again, arguing the amended allegations still fell short.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Despite having already been told what the complaint lacked, Sarieddine’s amended complaint alleged only that he first used the ALIEN mark in “late June/early July 2017” — an approximation the court found insufficient to establish priority over the defendants, who had asserted their own dates of first use. The court held that the amended allegations remained too vague to plausibly plead that Sarieddine was the senior user of the mark.

Because this was Sarieddine’s second opportunity to plead priority and the deficiency was the same both times, the dismissal strongly suggests the court views further amendment as futile.

Key Takeaways

• Trademark plaintiffs must plead specific, concrete dates of first use — not approximations like “late June/early July” — especially when the defendant has asserted competing priority.
• Courts will dismiss trademark infringement claims at the pleading stage when the complaint fails to establish that the plaintiff is the senior user of the mark.
• A second dismissal for the same deficiency after the plaintiff had a chance to amend is a strong signal that the court considers the claim beyond repair.

Why It Matters

For trademark owners, this case is a reminder that priority of use is the bedrock of U.S. trademark rights — and that courts will enforce rigorous pleading standards when priority is contested. In the growing market overlap between nicotine and cannabis products, where brands often share edgy or countercultural names, disputes like this one will become more common. Establishing and documenting the earliest provable date of use in commerce is essential before filing suit.