Originally published on lexsummary.com.
Case: NETGEAR, Inc. v. Choice Electronics Inc., No. 25-cv-02601-RS (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2026)
Judge: Chief Judge Richard Seeborg
Opinion: Download PDF | GovInfo
Background
NETGEAR brought this trademark infringement action against Choice Electronics, alleging that Choice sells NETGEAR products on Amazon and other online marketplaces advertised as new, when Choice is not an authorized reseller and the products are allegedly “used, closed-out, liquidated, counterfeit, and/or non-genuine product of unknown origin.” NETGEAR asserted claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and false advertising under the Lanham Act, along with related state law claims.
Choice filed counterclaims including: (1) declaratory relief; (2) false advertising under the Lanham Act (alleging NETGEAR manipulates Amazon listings by presenting new products as “variations” of existing products to inflate reviews); (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and (4) deceptive trade practices under New York General Business Law § 349.
Prior Ruling (Dkt. 70, Mar. 31, 2026)
In an earlier order on NETGEAR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court followed the reasoning of Corsair Gaming, Inc. v. Choice Electronics Inc., No. 5:25-CV-00045-BLF, 2025 WL 2822691 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2025)—a nearly identical case involving the same defendant. The court:
- Denied the motion as to the Lanham Act false advertising counterclaim, finding Choice had standing and adequately pleaded its claim that NETGEAR made “false and misleading representations” by listing new products as “variations” of existing products to inherit inflated reviews and ratings.
- Denied the motion as to the declaratory relief counterclaim.
- Granted the motion as to the California § 17200 and New York § 349 state law counterclaims to the extent they were predicated on Choice’s allegations regarding NETGEAR’s warranty practices, but otherwise denied the motion as to those claims.
The Present Motion (June 5, 2026)
Following the parties’ stipulation allowing Choice to re-file its amended counterclaims (which included three new counterclaims in addition to the original four), NETGEAR moved to dismiss Counterclaims III and IV—the same state law claims that had already been partially resolved by the prior order.
The court denied the motion as unnecessary, finding that NETGEAR had itself stipulated to the re-filing of the amended counterclaims “as included in Dkt. 67” and was “in no position to complain” about any resulting ambiguity. The court stated bluntly that “this motion should never have been filed,” and that if NETGEAR believed the re-filing created ambiguity about the prior ruling, it “should have sought a further stipulation to clarify” rather than “burdening the court and defendant with a motion to dismiss.”
Holding
The motion to dismiss is denied as unnecessary. The prior order on the motion for judgment on the pleadings remains in effect: Choice’s third and fourth counterclaims (California § 17200 and New York § 349) cannot proceed to the extent based on warranty-practice allegations, but may otherwise go forward.
Significance
This order, read together with the court’s earlier MJOP ruling, illustrates how unauthorized Amazon reseller disputes are generating a growing body of trademark and unfair competition caselaw. The court’s adoption of the Corsair framework confirms that counterclaims alleging product-listing manipulation (presenting new products as “variations” of existing products to inherit reviews) can survive a pleading-stage challenge under the Lanham Act. The June 5 order also serves as a practical reminder that litigants should use stipulations—not motions—to resolve procedural ambiguities that arise from their own prior agreements.