Blendtec v. Blendjet
2:21-cv-00668
| D. Utah | May 21, 2025Background
- Blendtec Inc. filed a trademark infringement suit in 2021 against Blendjet Inc., alleging unauthorized use of its design mark to market competing blenders.
- In January 2025, Mavorco Holdings acquired Blendjet and its trademarks; Blendtec responded by filing a second trademark infringement action (the 2025 Action) against both Mavorco and Blendjet.
- The 2025 Action includes additional claims under state law and seeks to establish Mavorco as Blendjet’s successor in interest and therefore liable for Blendjet's debts.
- Blendtec moved to consolidate the 2025 Action into the original 2021 Action under Rule 42(a), arguing for judicial efficiency due to similar parties and issues.
- Blendjet failed to secure new counsel and did not respond to the motion to consolidate, resulting in a clerk’s entry of default against Blendjet in the 2025 Action.
- The court denied the motion to consolidate, citing potential claim splitting and judicial inefficiency, and asked Blendtec to show cause why the earlier action should not be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation of Actions Under Rule 42(a) | Cases involve common facts and parties; consolidation promotes efficiency | No direct opposition by defendants | Consolidation denied; potential for judicial inefficiency and claim splitting |
| Claim Splitting | No explicit argument, but seeks to consolidate to avoid duplication | Not addressed | Court finds claim splitting present; consolidation inappropriate |
| Judicial Efficiency | Consolidation will save time and resources | Not addressed | Court finds the 2025 Action is more active and efficient to proceed alone |
| Default and Successor Liability | Mavorco liable as Blendjet’s successor; requests broad injunctive and monetary relief | Mavorco filed to dismiss for failure to state a claim | Court notes unresolved default/judgment issues; leans toward proceeding in 2025 Action |
Key Cases Cited
- Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341 (10th Cir. 1978) (court has discretion to consolidate cases for judicial efficiency)
- Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2011) (plaintiffs generally may not split related claims across multiple actions)
- Stone v. Dep’t of Aviation, 453 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2006) (discusses bar on claim splitting and res judicata)