Antetokounmpo v. Inverso

Background

Giannis Antetokounmpo sued Gavin Inverso, Joe Infanti, Nathan Ashby, Roney Perkins, Nicholas Regini, Bailey Carlin, and Me’Khail Cobb. The complaint asserts claims under federal trademark law for false designation of origin and false description, under New York law for deceptive and unfair trade practices, and under state law for unfair competition, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the right of publicity. The claims arise from the defendants’ alleged unauthorized use of Antetokounmpo’s name and likeness in products sold through media, platforms, and websites.

Antetokounmpo moved for a default judgment against Cobb. The opinion states that Cobb had not appeared and that a default had been certified. Antetokounmpo alleged that Cobb was an individual with an address in Indianapolis, Indiana, and that Cobb had been served there. The opinion also states that Antetokounmpo had filed notices of dismissal concerning the other defendants.

Personal Jurisdiction

Before entering a default judgment, the court had to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction—the legal authority to exercise power over Cobb. Antetokounmpo relied on New York’s long-arm statute and, alternatively, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k). He argued that Cobb conducted or solicited business in New York, derived substantial revenue from New York transactions, and caused injury in New York through online sales of products allegedly using Antetokounmpo’s name or likeness.

The court explained that New York law can permit jurisdiction when a defendant transacts business in New York or causes injury there while regularly conducting business, soliciting business, engaging in a persistent course of conduct, or receiving substantial revenue in the state. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in New York and that the claim arose from or related to the defendant’s New York contacts. The court noted that, in some circumstances, shipping an allegedly infringing product to New York—or even one qualifying transaction in New York—can establish jurisdiction.

Court’s Action

Antetokounmpo’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that Cobb offered apparel bearing Antetokounmpo’s name and likeness on Instagram. A screenshot appeared to show an account using the handle “king_Khail00” offering a T-shirt for $34.99. The screenshot did not show that the shirt was sold into New York.

The court ordered Antetokounmpo, by February 22, 2022, to provide either proof of a sale into New York involving Cobb or legal authority supporting the proposition that an offer for sale on an interactive website is enough to establish personal jurisdiction. If Antetokounmpo relied on Instagram or other social-media screenshots, he also had to explain why he believed the relevant account was owned by Cobb. The court stated that, without that showing, Antetokounmpo’s claims against Cobb would be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not itself dismiss those claims or decide the default-judgment motion in this order.

The initial pretrial conference was adjourned indefinitely.