Maurice v. Knowles-Carter

Background

Andre Maurice, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Beyonce Giselle Knowles-Carter, BGK Trademark Holdings LLC, Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He invoked diversity jurisdiction and asserted state-law claims for abuse of process, defamation, and civil conspiracy, along with claims under New York’s Donnelly Act and what he called the “New York Business and Professional Code.” He sought $500,000,000 in damages and other relief.

Maurice’s allegations concerned earlier litigation and trademark proceedings involving the term “FEYONCE.” He alleged that Beyonce and BGK improperly filed the earlier lawsuit, included defamatory material, contacted online platforms and the Patent and Trademark Office, and caused the removal of business listings and the termination of business services. He also challenged the Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register FEYONCE and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s affirmance of that refusal.

Claims Asserted for Feyonce Inc.

The court dismissed without prejudice any claims Maurice asserted on behalf of Feyonce Inc. The court explained that a person who is not a lawyer generally cannot represent a corporation or other artificial entity in federal court. Maurice did not allege that he was an attorney or that Feyonce Inc. was a sole proprietorship; the opinion said the business appeared to be a corporation.

Claims Against the Patent and Trademark Office

The court construed the damages claims against the Patent and Trademark Office as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It dismissed claims for abuse of process, libel, or slander because the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the federal government’s immunity for those types of claims. It also dismissed other damages claims because Maurice did not allege that he had first filed the required administrative claim and received a final written decision, or that six months had passed without such a decision.

The court further ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office was not the proper defendant for a court challenge to the refusal to register FEYONCE after the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision. Such a challenge could be brought against the adversarial parties, including Beyonce and BGK, rather than the Patent and Trademark Office. The court dismissed the claims against the Patent and Trademark Office for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Trademark-Review Claims Against Beyonce and BGK

The court construed any challenge to the trademark refusal as a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(1), which permits judicial review of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision. The court dismissed those claims against Beyonce and BGK because the statute does not provide damages as the requested relief and because Maurice did not file the challenge within the required 63-day period. The court also dismissed any other federal-law claims against Beyonce and BGK for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as stated in the conclusion.

State-Law Claims and Diversity Jurisdiction

The court dismissed Maurice’s state-law claims against Beyonce, BGK, Meta, and Google for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and every defendant to be citizens of different states, and the plaintiff must allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Maurice alleged that he was a citizen of Texas, that Beyonce was a citizen of New York, and that Meta was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in California. But he described BGK and Google as limited liability companies without identifying the citizenship of each company’s members. Because a limited liability company has the citizenship of all its members, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed Maurice’s claims on behalf of Feyonce Inc. without prejudice; dismissed the claims against the Patent and Trademark Office for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity; dismissed the federal-law claims against Beyonce and BGK for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and dismissed the state-law claims against Beyonce, BGK, Meta, and Google for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court granted Maurice 30 days to replead only his state-law claims against the non-federal defendants under diversity jurisdiction. Any amended complaint had to show that Maurice and all those defendants were citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Maurice fee-free status for an appeal.