Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC v. Dollywood Co.
90 F. Supp. 3d 97
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC (New York) owns federally registered DREAM marks for luxury hotels and sued Dollywood JV, Herschend, and Dolly Parton Productions (DPP) for Lanham Act trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- Dollywood JV is a Tennessee joint venture (Herschend and DPP are corporate parents) that operates Dollywood theme park and announced a resort named “Dollywood’s DreamMore Resort,” registered the domain dreammoreresort.com and filed an intent-to-use trademark application. The website launched with a Founders Club mailing list (≈30,000 sign-ups; ~1% New York residents).
- Dollywood JV’s site provided information but no reservations or sales at time of suit; post-filing it offered a $100 paid promotion to Founders Club members, including New York residents.
- Defendants conduct some contacts with New York: contracts/performances with New York entities, DPP filed limited NY tax returns, Herschend registered to do business and previously managed a NY park; defendants derive substantial interstate and international revenue from the theme park.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); the court denied the motion, concluding New York’s long-arm statute and due process permitted specific jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(3)(ii).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York courts have general jurisdiction over defendants | Defendants’ cumulative New York contacts (website access, contracts, registration, taxes) show continuous/systematic presence | Defendants not incorporated or principally located in NY; limited/episodic contacts insufficient under Daimler | Denied: no general jurisdiction — contacts not sufficient to render defendants "at home" in NY |
| Whether New York has specific jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(3)(ii) for out-of-state tort causing NY injury | Use of dreammoreresort.com and marketing foreseeably causes consumer confusion and harm to Chatwal’s NY-based goodwill | Website and marketing not purposefully directed to NY; contacts too attenuated | Granted: specific jurisdiction established under §302(a)(3)(ii) — out-of-state act, injury in NY, foreseeable consequences, and defendants derive substantial interstate revenue |
| Whether defendants reasonably should expect consequences in NY from their online and marketing activities | Founders Club emails and site aimed at nationwide audience including NY made consequences in NY foreseeable | Nationwide/neutral website insufficient to target NY specifically | Court: objective foreseeability satisfied because site/emails sought to attract customers nationwide including NY |
| Whether assertion of jurisdiction comports with Due Process (minimum contacts and reasonableness) | Defendants purposefully availed themselves via nationwide marketing and interstate commerce; litigating in NY is reasonable | Litigation in NY burdens defendants; jurisdiction would be unreasonable given lack of NY domicile | Court: Due process satisfied — minimum contacts and reasonableness met; long-arm and constitutional limits aligned |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (clarifies general jurisdiction limited to place of incorporation or principal place of business except in exceptional cases)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (all-purpose jurisdiction requires defendant be essentially at home in forum)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (Daimler’s impact on New York general jurisdiction analysis)
- Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (elements for CPLR § 302(a)(3)(ii) in trademark/internet contexts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability for minimum contacts)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts and due process foundation)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (limits on specific jurisdiction)