875 F. Supp. 2d 211
W.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Mrs. United States National Pageant, Inc. owns eight federally registered marks including 'Mrs. United States' and variants using 'United States' with prefixes like 'Mrs./Miss/Ms.'
- Defendants Miss United States of America Organization, LLC; Steven Gambrell; Tammy Johns use 'Miss United States of America' with 'of America' appended, arguing a distinction from Plaintiff’s marks.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants plan a July 2012 pageant in Atlanta and operate a related domain www.missunitedstatesofamerica.com.
- Defendants registered the marks and maintain an interactive website with contestant applications, contact forms, online payments, and an online store selling merchandise bearing Defendants’ marks.
- Johns is a former Plaintiff titleholder; a long‑standing contractual relationship and a forum‑selection clause exist in a Title Holder Agreement (§ H(6)) suggesting venue in New York, which Plaintiff asserts is relevant here.
- Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants’ use of the marks and the domain name while litigation proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over non-domiciliaries | Defendants purposefully availed themselves in New York via the website and related activities. | Defendants did not transact business in New York; no targeted conduct toward New York residents. | Court finds prima facie jurisdiction exists under NY long‑arm statute and due process. |
| Likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement | Defendants’ addition of 'of America' creates substantial similarity and likelihood of confusion with Plaintiff’s marks. | The added phrase creates a distinguishable element that should prevent confusion. | Court finds high similarity and likelihood of confusion; injunction warranted. |
| Irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits under eBay framework | Infringement threatens loss of goodwill and control over Plaintiff’s reputation, causing irreparable harm. | No irreparable harm beyond monetary damages; field is crowded but still protectable. | Court concludes irreparable harm and likelihood of success on merits support preliminary relief. |
| Cybersquatting under ACPA | Domain name infringing the marks was registered in bad faith. | Not addressed at length here; existing injunction suffices to restrain use of the domain. | ACPA claim discussed but injunction extended to the domain name regardless. |
| Venue and forum selection | Forum selection clause in Johns’ Title Holder Agreement supports New York venue; venue proper here. | Venue improper due to post‑termination timing and questions about the clause’s reach. | Court holds venue proper in this district; forum clause exists and does not negate jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli, 386 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1967) (early analysis of marks in crowded pageant field)
- Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli, 408 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1969) (clarified confusion analysis in pageant marks)
- Miss Universe III, 753 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1985) (distinguishable major element affects confusion assessment)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (classic Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (two‑step long‑arm due process framework for internet contacts)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (sliding scale framework for internet-based jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Ct. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts standard for jurisdiction)
- A. W.L.I. Group, Inc. v. Amber Freight Shipping Lines, 828 F. Supp. 2d 557 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (website may or may not constitute targeted online activity)
- Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (limitations on in‑state injury scope in internet IP cases)