The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PELOTON COLD BREW, LLC. : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. :
:
PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC. : NO. 21-3579
MEMORANDUM
Bartle, J. August 2, 2022
Plaintiff Peloton Cold Brew, LLC has sued defendant
Peloton Interactive, Inc. for a declaration that it is the owner
of a valid trademark for “Peloton,” U.S. Registration
No. 5385686, for “beverages made of coffee.” The defendant, a
seller of a variety of fitness-related goods and services, owns
a number of “Peloton” marks. It successfully petitioned for the
cancellation of the plaintiff’s mark before the Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board in the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. The plaintiff seeks review of the adverse decision of
the Trademark and Appeal Board pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b).
The statute provides for subject matter jurisdiction in the
United States District Courts. Before the court is the
defendant’s second motion to dismiss the complaint under
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack
of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(5) for
insufficient service of process.
Judge C. Darnell Jones II, to whom the action was
originally assigned, denied defendant’s original motion to
dismiss without prejudice as premature and gave the parties
45 days to obtain discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The
time period expired without plaintiff taking any discovery.
Thereafter, the action was reassigned to the undersigned.
Following a telephone conference with counsel and pursuant to
court order, defendant has now refiled its motion to dismiss.
Once defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the
burden rests on plaintiff to prove that it exists. O’Connor v.
Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007). As the
Supreme Court has stated, “Federal courts ordinarily follow
state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over
persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014).
Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute authorizes its courts to
exercise personal jurisdiction to “the fullest extent allowed
under the Constitution of the United States.” 42 Pa. Cons.
Stat. § 5322(b). As a result, this court looks to the
boundaries of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution to decide whether there is personal
jurisdiction.
There are two types of personal jurisdiction--general
and specific. General jurisdiction, on which plaintiff relies,
is present where a corporation’s “affiliations with the State
are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially
at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations,
S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). Defendant is correct
that this court does not have general jurisdiction over it. The
Supreme Court, as noted above, has determined that general
jurisdiction over a corporate defendant under the Constitution
is limited except in exceptional cases to the places where it is
“fairly regarded as at home.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137 and 139
n.19. The two places, the paradigm fora, are the state of
defendant’s incorporation and the state where defendant has its
principal place of business. Id. Here, defendant was
incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its principal
place of business in the state of New York. While plaintiff
argues that defendant has stores and warehouses in Pennsylvania,
those facts, even if true, are not enough to establish the
exceptional case. Id. at 137-39; Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 927-930.
A defendant may also be subject under the
Constitution to specific personal jurisdiction of the court in a
forum where: (1) defendant has purposely directed specific
activities at the forum; (2) the plaintiff’s claim has arisen
out of or is related to at least one of those activities; and
(3) the assertion of jurisdiction comports with fair play and
substantial justice. Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 296
(3d Cir. 2007). Plaintiff seeks review of the decision of the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which cancelled plaintiff’s
trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is located and
acted in Virginia. That is the state where specific
jurisdiction lies. Nothing concerning the adjudication in
Virginia arose out of or related to defendant’s activities in
Pennsylvania. Consequently, plaintiff cannot establish specific
jurisdiction in this court. See Impossible Foods, Inc. v.
Impossible X LLC, Civ. A. No. 21-2419, 2021 WL 5331444, at *6
(N.D. Cal. Nov 16, 2021), appeal filed (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2021);
Freud America, Inc v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., Civ. A. No.
20-109, 2020 WL 8248765, at *5 (M.D.N.C. June 17, 2020).
Accordingly, the motion of defendant to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction will be granted.1
1. The defendant also asserts that plaintiff did not timely
effectuate service of process. The court need not reach this
issue in light of its resolution of the issue of personal
jurisdiction.