Pattishall IP Blog

August 29, 2017

Second Circuit Victory Latest Chapter in Donnay Litigation

Filed under: Trademark (General) — Tags: , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 2:45 pm

By Robert W. Sacoffrws_high_res

On August 24, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit closed the latest chapter of the long-running DONNAY litigation, ruling in favor of our clients Donnay Int’l S.A., Int’l Brand Mgt. Ltd, and Brands Holdings Ltd in a suit brought by their 2009 licensee (“Licensee”) of the DONNAY tennis racket brand.

Licensee disputes our clients’ termination of its license, and first sued Donnay Int’l S.A. for two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000.00) in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, in 2014.  We removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Central Islip, where it was designated Donnay USA Ltd v. Donnay Int’l S.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-06095-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y.).  We then moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim.  U.S. District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein granted our motion, with prejudice.  Licensee appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 15-2385, but its appeal was dismissed.

Licensee then filed a second action in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, in 2015, seeking one hundred ninety million dollars ($190,000,000.00).  We again removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where it was styled Donnay USA Ltd v. Donnay Int’l S.A., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05969-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.).  We then moved to dismiss the case on grounds of res judicata and the forum selection clauses placing exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of England and Wales.  The Honorable Joan M. Azrack granted our motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, based on the forum selection clause, and found it unnecessary to reach the res judicata ground.

Licensee then appealed, again, to the Second Circuit, Case No. 16-3067.  The case was briefed, and was argued before a three judge panel consisting of Judges Pierre Leval, Reena Raggi, and Raymnd J. Lohier, on Friday, August 18th.  The Court issued its Summary Order six days later, on August 24th, affirming Judge Azrack’s dismissal of the case.  In addition to the author above, our team included Robert Newbury, Seth Appel, and Kristine Bergman

These materials have been prepared by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP for general informational purposes only.
They are not legal advice. They are not intended to create, and their receipt by you does not create, an attorney-client relationship.

.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: