Powerhouse Beverage Company LLC v. Nahoum
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-05559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Powerhouse Beverage v. Nahoum, Judge Subramanian gave notice of possible summary-judgment issues and invited responses without deciding them.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, particularly their trademark-infringement and declaratory-judgment claims and any remaining claims potentially subject to supplemental jurisdiction.
What happened
In Powerhouse Beverage Company LLC v. Nahoum, the court identified several issues that could affect the parties’ trademark and related claims. It said the parties would have an opportunity to respond before the court considered deciding any issue on its own under the summary-judgment rules.
The possible issues include whether the defendants used the relevant trademarks in commerce, whether they have standing to seek a declaration about ownership of the marks, and whether the court should decline to hear that declaratory claim. The court also asked about the validity of assignments between Powerhouse entities and whether it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims if both trademark claims were dismissed.
The court did not decide these issues. Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the parties to file letters by April 12, 2024, allowed responsive letters by April 19, 2024, and required specific citations to admissible discovery materials for any claimed factual dispute.
The detailed version
- Powerhouse Beverage Company LLC v. Nahoum · No. 1:22-cv-05559
- Subramanian
- Mar. 28, 2024
What the order does
The court issued a notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). That rule permits a court to consider summary judgment—judgment without a trial when no genuine dispute over a material fact exists—on grounds not raised by a party or on the court’s own initiative, but only after giving notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The order does not grant or deny summary judgment and does not resolve any claim.
Issues identified by the court
The court identified five issues on which it perceived no genuine dispute of material fact:
- Whether the defendants did not use the relevant marks in commerce for purposes of the plaintiffs’ trademark-infringement claim.
- Whether the defendants lack standing—the legal ability to bring a claim—to seek a declaration that Powerhouse Beverage Company LLC is the rightful owner of the relevant marks. The court specifically raised whether the defendants suffered an injury in fact and whether declaring the LLC the owner would remedy that injury. It also questioned whether the defendants are a party with an interest under the Declaratory Judgment Act or would have standing under another theory.
- Whether, even if the court had constitutional jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment claim, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
- Whether assignments from Powerhouse Beverage Company LLC to Powerhouse Brands Inc. were invalid assignments in gross if the court reached the declaratory-judgment claim. An assignment in gross is a transfer of a trademark without the associated business or goodwill the mark identifies.
- Whether, if the court dismissed both parties’ trademark claims, it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
Required responses and current status
The court directed the parties to address the issues in letters of no more than 10 double-spaced pages due April 12, 2024. The parties could file responsive letters of no more than 5 double-spaced pages by April 19, 2024. To show a genuine dispute about a material fact, each side must provide specific citations to admissible materials produced in discovery and properly included in the summary-judgment record. The order itself makes no final ruling on the trademark claims, declaratory-judgment claim, assignments, standing, jurisdiction, or remaining claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.