Decision Chloe Queen Bee 2d Circuit PJ

Provided by CourtAlert www.CourtAlert.com

The Honorable Gregory W. Carman of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by

*

designation.1

09-3361-cvChloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term, 2009Argued: March 23, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010Docket No.: 09-3361-cvC

HLOÉ

,

A DIVISION OF

R

ICHEMONT

N

ORTH

A

MERICA

,

I

NC

.,

C

HLOÉ

,

S.A.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

,ABC,

Plaintiff

,v.Q

UEEN

B

EE OF

B

EVERLY

H

ILLS

,

LLC,

R

EBECCA

R

USHING

,

ALSO KNOWN AS

R

EBECCA

G

RELIER

,M

OHAMAD

A

LEXANDER

Z

ARAFSHAN

,

ALSO KNOWN AS

A

LEXANDER

Z

AR

,

J

ENNIFER

S

UNS

,

S

UN

-E

YE

P

RODUCTIONS

,

I

NC

.

DEF,

2-20

J

OHN

D

OES

,

Defendants

,S

IMONE

U

BALDELLI

,

Defendant-Appellee

.Before: R

AGGI

and H

ALL

,

Circuit Judges

, and C

ARMAN

,

Judge

.

*

Plaintiffs-Appellants Chloé and Chloé, S.A. brought suit in United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York (Holwell,

J

.) against,

inter alios

, Defendant-Appellee

Provided by CourtAlert www.CourtAlert.com

2Simone Ubaldelli. The amended complaint alleged violations of sections 32(1) and 43(a) of theTrademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051,

et seq.

, and New York General Business Law § 349(McKinney 2004), as well as common law trademark infringement and unfair competition.Plaintiffs-Appellants moved for summary judgment on liability and Ubaldelli cross-moved todismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted Ubaldelli’s motion anddenied as moot Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion seeking a judgment of liability. Because theassertion of personal jurisdiction over Ubaldelli comports with New York’s long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a) (McKinney 2001), and with due process, we hold that Ubaldelli’s singleact of shipping an item into New York, combined with the affiliated business’s substantialactivity involving New York, give rise to personal jurisdiction over Ubaldelli. Accordingly, weVACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings.M

ILTON

S

PRINGUT

(Tal S. Benschar,

on the brief

),Kalow & Springut, L.L.P., New York, New York,

for Plaintiffs-Appellants Chloé, et al.

M

ICHAEL

K

ONOPKA

,

E

SQ

., New York, New York,

for Defendant-Appellee Simone Ubaldelli

.David H. Bernstein, Christopher J. Hamilton,Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, New York;Steven B. Pokotilow, Stroock & Stroock & LavanLLP, New York, New York; John W. Crittenden,Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, San Francisco,California,

for Amicus Curiae International Trademark Association

.H

ALL

, Circuit Judge:Plaintiffs-Appellants Chloé and Chloé, S.A. (together, “Chloé”) brought suit in UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York (Holwell,

J

.) against,

inter alios

,

Provided by CourtAlert www.CourtAlert.com

Ubaldelli is the only remaining defendant-appellee before the Court. Defendants Queen Bee

1

and Rebecca Rushing declared bankruptcy and the action was stayed against them. Chloé settledits claims against defendants Sun-Eye Productions and Jennifer Suns. Chloé’s claims againstMohamad Alexander Zarafshan were resolved on default.3Defendant-Appellee Simone Ubaldelli (“Ubaldelli”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The amended

1

complaint alleged violations of sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15U.S.C. § 1051,

et seq.

, and New York General Business Law § 349 (McKinney 2004), as well ascommon law trademark infringement and unfair competition. Chloé moved for summary judgment on liability and Ubaldelli cross-moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thedistrict court granted Ubaldelli’s motion and denied Chloé’s motion as moot. On appeal, Chloéargues that jurisdiction over Ubaldelli comports with New York’s long-arm statute, N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 302(a) (McKinney 2001), and with due process. We agree and hold that Ubaldelli’ssingle act of shipping an item into New York combined with the substantial business activity of Queen Bee, the entity with which Ubaldelli was affiliated, involving New York, give rise to personal jurisdiction over Ubaldelli. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district courtand remand the case for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUNDA.Facts

Chloé, which refers both to the Plaintiff-Appellant that is a division of Delawarecorporation Richemont North America, Inc. (“Chloé NA”), and has its principal place of business in New York and to the Plaintiff-Appellant that is a French corporation (“Chloé SA”)and has its principal place of business in Paris, is a fashion company that sells women’s clothingand accessories. Chloé SA is the owner of a trademark registration for the word mark CHLOÉfor handbags. Chloé NA is the exclusive U.S. licensee of the CHLOÉ trademark for all Chloé