Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc., D/B/A Rippling
24-490
| 2d Cir. | Aug 26, 2025Background
- Ripple Analytics Inc. operated an HR software platform and originally held the "RIPPLE®" trademark.
- In 2018, Ripple assigned all rights, title, and interest in its intellectual property, including the trademark, to its Chairman and CEO, Noah Pusey.
- People Center, Inc. began using the mark "RIPPLING" for similar HR software after abandoning its attempt to register the mark.
- Ripple sued People Center for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming ownership of the RIPPLE® mark despite the prior assignment to Pusey.
- The district court dismissed Ripple’s claims for lack of standing and real-party-in-interest issues, and denied Ripple’s motion to amend the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and real party in interest for TM claim | Ripple claims it owns the mark or Pusey has sufficiently ratified the lawsuit | People Center contends only Pusey is the real party in interest | Ripple not the real party in interest; Pusey did not properly ratify; dismissal proper |
| Standing for unfair competition claims | Ripple argues it alleged sufficient commercial injury and ongoing use of the mark | People Center disputes Ripple’s standing given the full assignment to Pusey | Ripple lacked standing; assignment covered all claims/remedies |
| Leave to amend the complaint | Ripple asserts amendment would cure standing issues as a user/implied licensee | People Center argues amendment is futile due to explicit assignment terms | Amendment would be futile; no commercial interest or right to sue established |
| Amendment of defendant’s answer | Ripple challenges initial grant of People Center’s leave to amend to add standing defense | People Center notes later denial of amendment motion mooted issue | Not a proper subject for appeal; district court acted within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Island Software & Comput. Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2005) (only the trademark owner can sue for infringement)
- Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 991 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2021) (defines the "real party in interest" standard)
- Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.à.r.l., 790 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for Rule 17 dismissals)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (limits standing under Lanham Act to commercial interests)