Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC

Background

Robert Serafin sued Realmark Holdings, LLC; Realmark, Inc.; his former wife, Madeline Serafin; and unnamed defendants. He alleged that he and Madeline Serafin had each held a 50% ownership stake in Realmark, Inc. since forming the company in 2014. He also alleged that the “Realmark” mark was associated with Realmark, Inc. and promoted its real-estate services.

According to the complaint, Madeline Serafin and unnamed defendants created Realmark Holdings, LLC in late 2022. Serafin alleged that the new entity used Realmark, Inc.’s website to offer the same or similar services and attempted to confuse customers and move them to Realmark Holdings, LLC. His complaint asserted two claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and eight state-law claims. He sought money damages and an injunction.

The named defendants moved for summary judgment. Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Claims 1–5: Summary Judgment

The court granted summary judgment on claims 1–5. The first and fourth claims were Lanham Act claims based on a false-association theory. The second and third claims involved California common-law trademark claims, and the fifth claim alleged a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

For the Lanham Act claims, the court explained that Serafin needed evidence showing either ownership of the mark or another legally recognized interest sufficient to bring the claim. He relied on the allegations in his unverified complaint and on his own declaration stating that he was a co-founder and 50% shareholder of Realmark, Inc. The court held that this declaration, standing alone, was insufficient because the statement that he was a shareholder was a legal conclusion, and he provided no additional evidence establishing his ownership stake.

The court also held that Serafin had not identified admissible evidence showing infringement. He provided no evidence that Realmark Holdings was using the Realmark trademark, much less using it in a way likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. The court applied the same lack of evidence to the California common-law trademark-infringement claim.

The court further found no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute on the California trademark-dilution claim. It also found no evidence supporting the fifth claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which was based on the alleged improper use of the Realmark mark.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims 1–5 and entered judgment in defendants’ favor on those claims.

Claims 6–10: State-Law Claims

The remaining claims alleged interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Once the federal trademark claims were resolved, the only possible basis for federal jurisdiction over these claims was supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims in some circumstances.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It reasoned that the remaining claims required analysis of specific state-law issues and were not resolved by the summary-judgment ruling on the federal trademark and closely related state-law claims. The court concluded that considerations including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts favored declining jurisdiction.

Judge Pitts dismissed claims 6–10 without prejudice. The court’s final order granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims 1–5, entered judgment for defendants on those claims, and dismissed claims 6–10 without prejudice.