United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FISH, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is the motion of the defendants TB Nails Product,
Inc. (“TB Nails”) and Gio Van Tran (“Van
Tran”) to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against
them for lack of personal jurisdiction (docket entry 11). For
the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
Coach, Inc., is a Maryland corporation with its principal
place of business in New York, New York. Complaint ¶ 5
(docket entry 1). Plaintiff Coach Services, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in
Jacksonville, Florida. Id. ¶ 6.
Nails, a California corporation and previously a wholesale
supply business, is no longer doing business. Id.
¶ 7; Opposed Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2)
(“Motion”) ¶¶ 1, 2 (docket entry 11).
California resident, is the president, chief executive
officer, and sole shareholder of TB Nails. Complaint ¶
8; Motion ¶¶ 1, 3; Affidavit in Support of Motion
to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2) (“Tran Affidavit”)
at 1, attached as Exhibit A to Motion.
Inc., and Coach Services, Inc., (collectively,
“Coach”) manufacture, market, and sell fine
leather and mixed material goods. Complaint ¶ 10. Coach
sells its goods throughout the United States, including in
Texas. Id. Coach holds many trademarks registered
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Id. ¶¶ 17-19. Additionally, Coach asserts
that is “has been the sole owner and proprietor of all
rights, title, and interest in and to the copyrights in the
Coach Design Elements used on Coach Products, and such
copyrights are valid, subsisting and in full force and
effect.” Id. ¶ 30.
December 23, 2015, Joel Voyles (“Voyles”), an
undercover investigator hired by Coach, entered A-1 Beauty
& Nails Warehouse (“Nails Warehouse”),
identified as “Nails Warehouse” by signage,
located at 9780 Walnut Street, Suite Number 240, in Dallas,
Texas, to purchase items bearing Coach trademarks. Complaint
¶ 32; Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to
Defendants' Opposed Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2)
(“Appendix”) at App. 17, 19. Voyles saw five sets
of Coach trademarked nail tips for sale and purchased one
set. Complaint ¶ 32; Appendix at App. 19-22. Thereafter,
he determined the set was counterfeit and infringed on
Coach's intellectual property. Complaint ¶ 32. Coach
does not manufacture nail tips. Appendix at App. 23. Coach
contends that the defendants sold these counterfeit products
to Nails Warehouse. Complaint ¶ 33; Plaintiffs'
Response to Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Under
Rule 12(b)(2) (“Response”) at 2-3 (docket entry
subsequently brought this action against TB Nails and Van
Tran for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement,
trade dress infringement, false designation of origin and
false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright
infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.
See generally Complaint. The defendants move to
dismiss Coach's claims against them for lack of personal
jurisdiction. See generally Motion.
The Factual Standard: A Prima Facie Case
nonresident defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
the district court's jurisdiction over the nonresident.
Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 930 (1994); Gardemal v.
Westin Hotel Company, 186 F.3d 588, 592 (5th Cir. 1999).
If the district court chooses to decide the matter without an
evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff may meet its burden by
presenting a prima facie case for personal
jurisdiction. Wilson, 20 F.3d at 648;
Gardemal, 186 F.3d at 592.
court will take the allegations of the complaint as true,
except where they are controverted by opposing affidavits,
and all conflicts in the facts are resolved in favor of the
plaintiff. Wilson, 20 F.3d at 648;
Gardemal, 186 F.3d at 592. In making its
determination, the court may consider affidavits,
interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any
combination of recognized discovery methods. Allred v.
Moore & Peterson, 117 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1997),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1048 (1998); Thompson v.
Chrysler Motors Corporation, 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th