OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD This is one of two cases on the Court’s docket between New York-based fashion designer and manufacturer, Mrinalini, Inc., and Italian fashion company Valentino S.p.A., relating to Mrinalini’s allegations that Valentino S.p.A., and its subsidiary, Valentino U.S.A., Inc. (together, “Valentino”) repeatedly stole its copyrighted fashion designs and misappropriated the unique stitching technique that Mrinalini had developed to bring those designs to life. In the original action before this court, see Mrinalini, Inc. v. Valentino S.p.A., No. 1:22-CV-2453 (MKV), the Court compelled arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause in a purchasing agreement between the parties to determine the arbitrability of Mrinalini’s claims in the first instance and stayed all proceedings in the action pending arbitration. Subsequently, an arbitrator appointed by the Chamber of Arbitration of Milan (“CAM”) issued a final arbitration award in favor of Valentino. Valentino S.p.A. then commenced this action under Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§207 et seq., and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38, by filing a petition to confirm and enforce the final arbitration award. For the reasons discussed below, Valentino’s petition and subsequent motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award are GRANTED. BACKGROUND1 The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts of this case and its prior decisions in both this action and the related action also pending before this Court. See e.g., Mrinalini, Inc. v. Valentino S.p.A., No. 1:22-CV-2453 (MKV), 2023 WL 2307479 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023), reconsideration denied, No. 1:22-CV-2453 (MKV), 2023 WL 3847292 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2023). The Court reviews only those facts and procedural history relevant to this motion. Mrinalini and Valentino Relationship Mrinalini, Inc. is a New York-based business that designs and manufactures goods for fashion designers. See AC
26-29. In 2006, Mrinalini began working with the Italian fashion designer Valentino S.p.A. AC 30. In the early years, Mrinalini would generally manufacture goods for Valentino S.p.A. using original Mrinalini designs. AC 30. Things changed in 2014, however, when Mrinalini started functioning less as a designer and more as a contract manufacturer. AC 36. Mrinalini and Valentino S.p.A. memorialized this new relationship in 2014 when they agreed to “General Purchasing Conditions.” AC, Ex. A (the “Purchasing Agreement”). This Agreement contained an arbitration clause, which provided that “[a]ny dispute that may arise connected to the Agreement as well as associated or connected to its execution, interpretation, enforcement, [or] validity, shall be referred…to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Milan Chamber of Arbitration, pursuant [to] the Rules of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration.” AC, Ex. A §22.2. Over time, the relationship between the parties began to deteriorate. In or around 2019, Mrinalini accused Valentino of misappropriating certain of Mrinalini’s alleged trade secrets. Resp. 56.1 6. Soon thereafter, Valentino and Mrinalini began negotiations in an attempt to resolve the disputes between them. Resp. 56.1 7. The Milan Arbitration Unable to resolve the disputes, in February 2022, Valentino S.p.A. initiated an arbitration in Italy relating to contractual issues captioned Valentino S.p.A. v. Mrinalini Inc., Chamber of Arbitration of Milan (“CAM”), Arbitration No. 1022 (the “Arbitration”). Resp. 56.1 6.2 Mrinalini submitted its Response to the Request for Arbitration, which Mrinalini describes as “primarily an objection to the arbitration.” Resp. 56.1 14. Additionally, Mrinalini challenged the appointment of the Arbitrator, alleging that he was not “objectively independent.” Resp. 56.1
