Aaron Consulting Co., LLC d/b/a Ibidmobile.net, Plaintiffv.Snap Solutions LLC d/b/a Events.org, ibid, and ibid.com; and David Hassan, Defendants
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Aaron Consulting Co., LLC brings this action under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, alleging that Defendants Snap Solutions LLC (“Snap”) and David Hassan diluted and misappropriated Plaintiff’s common-law rights in the “ibidmobile.net” trademark. (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. 13).) Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (5) on the grounds that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants and that Plaintiff did not properly serve the amended complaint on Defendants. (See Defs. Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 21-1); Defs. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. (“Mem.”) (Dkt. 21).)For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.I. BACKGROUNDA. FactsThe court takes the following statement of facts largely from Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the well-pleaded allegations of which the court generally accepts as true for purposes of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. N.Y. Pet Welfare Ass’n v. City of New York, 850 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2017). “Additionally, because a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction requires the resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings, the [c]ourt considers other relevant submissions from the parties at this stage.” Cloplay Plastic Prods. Co. v. Excelsior Packaging Grp., Inc., No. 12-CV-5262 (JPO), 2014 WL 4473352, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2014); see Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“[A] district court may [consider materials outside the pleadings] without converting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction into a motion for summary judgment.”). Specifically, the court considers the Declaration of David Hassan in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss (see Decl. of David Hassan (“Hassan Decl.”) (Dkt. 21-2)), as well as the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s amended complaint.1. The PartiesPlaintiff is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. (Am. Compl. 1.) Plaintiff owns and operates the website ibidmobile.net, “a long-standing, world renowned professional wireless auction company.” (Id. 10.) Plaintiff registered the website’s domain name on May 5, 2010. (Id. 11.) According to Plaintiff, “Ibidmobile.net has become a fixture of professional online and mobile auction management, providing charity auction technology and services for the business of raising funds for nonprofit[s].” (Id.) Plaintiff’s ibidmobile.net mark has been in continuous commercial use since April 10, 2010, and was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 3, 2012. (Id. 22.)Snap is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. (Id.
