Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

More Cupcakes, LLC v. Lovemore LLC, No. 09 C 3555, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 29, 2009) (Kocoras, J.)

Judge Kocoras denied defendants (collectively “Lovemore”) Fed. R. Cir. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Fed. R. Cir. P.12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the individual Lovemore defendants’ (collectively "Lovemore individuals") based upon the fiduciary shield doctrine in this Lanham Act dispute regarding plaintiff More Cupcake’s LOVE MORE mark for use on t-shirts. The Court did, however, grant Lovemore’s §1404 motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York.

The parties agreed that the Court lacked general jurisdiction and argued only specific jurisdiction. The Court held that it had specific jurisdiction based upon the effects test. Lovemore’s alleged infringing acts were aimed at More Cupcakes in Illinois when Lovemore approved sales of allegedly infringing t-shirts to Illinois addresses after being warned of the alleged infringement in a Patent & Trademark Office proceeding and in settlement talks with More Cupcakes. Lovemore’s interactive website coupled with sales to Illinois also created specific jurisdiction. The fact that Lovemore’s most recent Illinois sale was to More Cupcakes’ counsel did not impact the analysis. Lovemore still knowingly sold product within Illinois. 

The fiduciary shield doctrine did not apply to the individual defendants, who were both owners and operators of Lovemore. The fiduciary shield doctrine denies personal jurisdiction over individuals who contact Illinois solely for the benefit of their employees and not themselves. But the doctrine does not apply to owners of a company that have discretion over whether or not they do business in Illinois. As Lovemore owners, therefore, the Lovemore individuals are not protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine.

For similar reasons, while corporate officers are generally not personally liable for corporate trademark infringement claims, More Cupcakes’ claims against the Lovemore individuals survived. Both individuals were owners of Lovemore and the Complaint alleged that they personally directed the allegedly infringing acts.

Finally, the Court transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York.  While More Cupcakes’ chosen forum deserves deference, the material events regarding the alleged infringement all occurred in New York where the t-shirts were designed, made, offered for sale and sold. And the Court held that the convenience factors, such as locations of documents and witnesses, were all neutral.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

C.S.B. Commodities, Inc. v. Urban Trend (HK) Ltd., No. 08 C 1548, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2009) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted corporate defendant Urban Trend's (“Urban Trend”) and denied the individual defendant's respective Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss plaintiff's Lanham Act unfair competition and related state law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff served the individual defendant, who was Urban Trend's president, while he was representing Urban Trend at a trade show in Illinois. The Court held that personal service created jurisdiction over the individual defendant, even though the Court may not have had jurisdiction but for personal service. And while the individual defendant was in Illinois as part of his job responsibilities representing Urban Trend at the trade show, the Fiduciary Shield Doctrine did not protect him. As Urban Trend's president, the individual defendant would have gained independent economic benefit from selling Urban Trend's products at the trade show. And as president, the individual defendant had at least some control over whether to sell or promote products in Illinois.

The Court, however, held that personal service upon Urban Trend's president was not sufficient to create jurisdiction over Urban Trend. And tradeshow attendance alone was not sufficient to create specific jurisdiction over Urban Trend. There was no evidence that Urban Trend's tradeshow efforts were particularly focused on Illinois sales, or that Urban Trend completed any sales.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Minemyer v. R-Boc Reps., Inc., No. 07 C 1763, 2007 WL 2461666 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar denied individual defendant Timothy Grimsley’s (“Grimsley”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Grimsley argued that all of his involvement in allegedly infringing plaintiff’s patented couplers was undertaken within the scope of his employment for defendant Dura-Line and, therefore, was protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine. But the Court disagreed. The parties provided conflicting evidence regarding whether Grimsley was an officer of Dura-Line and Grimsley’s level of control over Dura-Line’s coupler business. Additionally, the parties provided conflicting evidence regarding whether Grimsley was aware that Dura-Line’s couplers infringed plaintiff’s patents, but continued to market and sell them despite that knowledge, acts which would go beyond the scope of his employment because of his knowledge of their illegality. The Court, therefore, held that based on the current evidence the fiduciary shield doctrine was not available to Grimsley. But the Court acknowledged that further evidence may reverse that analysis and allowed Grimsley to refile his motion should discovery present that additional evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link