What Happened
Judge Richard Lee issued a mixed ruling on defendants Fahri Sarikala and Merkur, LLC dba Malisa Mobility’s demurrer and motion to strike directed at ComfyGo, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint. On the demurrer, the court sustained with leave to amend as to trademark infringement under Business and Professions Code section 14245 (count 1), misappropriation (count 3), accounting (count 5, without leave to amend), commercial disparagement (count 8), and trademark dilution under section 14247 (count 9). It overruled the demurrer as to conversion, unfair business practices under section 17200 (UCL), negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional interference with contract.
On the motion to strike, the court granted without leave the request to strike disgorgement remedies sought under the UCL, granted with leave as to the punitive-damages and UCL attorneys’-fees prayers, denied as to restitution remedies under the UCL, denied as to the timeliness challenge to the FAC, and denied the request to strike the Tenth and Eleventh causes of action as exceeding the scope of leave to amend.
Context
ComfyGo manufactures and sells mobility products and asserts ownership of the “ComfyGo” and “Majestic Buvan” trademarks. It claims to hold federal registrations numbered 6423157 and 5824979 with the USPTO and pleads it has been the “California and Federal trademark holder” of these service marks since 2019. Sarikala and Merkur (doing business as Malisa Mobility) are alleged former resellers who are said to have continued using ComfyGo’s marks to direct business away from ComfyGo.
The court found the pleading on the California trademark counts insufficient on multiple grounds: ComfyGo did not clearly plead that the marks are registered with the California Secretary of State (a judicial-notice search returned no California record for “comfygo”); it did not specify which of the two pleaded marks the defendants used; and on trademark infringement under section 14245, the boilerplate intent allegations did not satisfy the statute’s requirement that defendants used the marks with knowledge that they were intended to cause confusion or to deceive. On dilution under section 14247, the court found no facts showing the marks are “famous” as the statute requires, citing the Arcsoft, Inc. v. Cyberlink Corp. factors.
On conversion, the court rejected the categorical “trademarks are intangible” defense, citing English & Sons, Inc. v. Straw Hat Restaurants, Inc. for the proposition that California conversion law can protect trademarks. The UCL count survived because converting another’s mark to pass off goods could reasonably be deemed unfair. The negligent and intentional interference counts survived on allegations that the defendants disrupted ComfyGo’s existing relationships with suppliers, manufacturers, resellers, vendors, customers, and clients. The accounting count was dismissed without leave because the relief sought was simply damages on the underlying claims rather than a true accounting of money owed under a business relationship.
On disgorgement under the UCL, the court applied Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products to bar disgorgement of all benefits and limit equitable relief to restitution of money or property unfairly acquired. The court also reminded the parties that attorneys’ fees are not generally recoverable under sections 17200 or 17500 absent a separate fee-shifting hook, citing Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
What’s Next
- ComfyGo granted 20 days leave to amend the trademark infringement (section 14245), misappropriation, commercial disparagement, and trademark dilution (section 14247) counts, and to attempt to plead a contractual, statutory, or equitable basis for UCL attorneys’ fees and to plead facts supporting oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages.
- No further leave to amend on the accounting cause of action or on the UCL disgorgement prayer.
- Case Management Conference continued to June 4, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
- Conversion, UCL (restitution only), negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional interference with contract proceed; defendants must answer the surviving counts.
Notes
Summarizes an Orange County Superior Court minute order. The court order is the primary source; no third-party reporting was used. The court took the demurrer under submission and ruled later the same day, after first confirming the tentative ruling on the motion to strike following oral argument.