District Judge Nina Gershon
In 2005 Disney prepared to launch its “Fairies” product line, using the iconic Disney fairy Tinker Bell as part of the branding. Despite owning the trademark “Tinker Bell” Disney did not own the marks “Tinkerbell,” “Tink,” or “Big T.” Its 2006 purchase of those marks from Finanz St. Honore B.V. led to the instant litigation for an order of attachment against Finanz under two contracted for indemnification clauses from Finanz to protect itself against suit by nonparty Ice Box Inc. In relation to the subject trademarks. Disney prevailed on the merits in its action for partial summary judgment as to liability on its contract breach claims against Finanz over Finanz’s failure to fully indemnify Disney’s defense of Ice Box’s 2010 lawsuit. Subject to provision of a $3,500 undertaking, the court granted Disney’s motion to attach Finanz’s assets in the amount of $700,000. Disney satisfied the requirements set out in New York CPLR 6212 and the Second Circuit’s 2006 decision in Capital Ventures v. Republic of Argentina, 443 F.3d 214. Disney amply showed its need for an attachment to secure its judgment. Finanz’s financial status appears precarious, its corporate relationships are obscure, and it failed to respond to Disney’s motion to clarify its situation.