TELE MARKETERS, INC. v. INVENTEL PRODUCTS, LLC
2:16-cv-02316
| D.N.J. | Aug 10, 2016Background
- Creative Concepts (New Jersey) developed a dashboard camera called the “Cobra Cam” and planned packaging using the phrase "as seen on TV."
- Inventel (New Jersey) markets a competing dashboard camera called the "Dash Cam Pro" and contended Creative Concepts’ marketing would cause consumer confusion and harm Inventel’s sales.
- Inventel first sued in S.D.N.Y.; that complaint was dismissed for improper venue and Inventel dismissed and refiled in D.N.J.
- Creative Concepts then filed a declaratory judgment action in D.N.J. seeking a ruling that its marketing/packaging did not violate Inventel’s rights.
- Inventel filed a coercive (affirmative) suit in D.N.J.; both actions now pending in this district.
- Inventel moved to dismiss Creative Concepts’ declaratory-judgment action as duplicative; Creative Concepts opposed and sought consolidation instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should exercise discretion to hear the first‑filed declaratory judgment action | Creative Concepts argued the coercive action should be consolidated into its declaratory action and that the Court should adjudicate uncertainty about its marketing | Inventel argued the declaratory action is duplicative of its coercive suit and should be dismissed to avoid duplicative/conflicting litigation | Court dismissed the declaratory action as duplicative and declined to exercise discretion to hear it, deferring to the coercive suit |
| Whether judicial economy and avoidance of conflicting rulings favor retaining the declaratory action | Creative Concepts argued adjudicating its claim would resolve rights and prevent future disputes | Inventel argued both suits are in the same district and dismissing the declaratory action conserves resources and avoids conflicts | Court concluded conserving judicial and party resources and avoiding duplication favored dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Davis, 490 F.2d 536 (3d Cir. 1974) (explains purpose of Declaratory Judgment Act as allowing early adjudication to avoid accrual of damages)
- ACandS, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 666 F.2d 819 (3d Cir. 1981) (declaratory relief appropriate where determination will strongly affect present behavior and have present consequences)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) (district courts have discretion whether to entertain declaratory judgment actions)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (federal courts should avoid duplicative litigation between district courts)
- Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 500 F.3d 322 (3d Cir. 2007) (two actions are duplicative when determination in one leaves little to be decided in the other)
- E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988) (first‑filed rule is discretionary; courts may decline to retain jurisdiction in favor of another action)
- Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Int’l Union, 502 F. App’x 201 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of a first‑filed declaratory action in favor of a coercive suit)
- Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, LLC v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (presumption to give priority to coercive action over declaratory action in parallel suits)
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader‑Bridgeport Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (where cases are mirror images—declaratory v. coercive—priority is ordinarily given to the coercive action)