Case remanded to Chancery Court after dismissal of Lanham Act claims
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Albermarle Corp., Inc., No. 05-892-JJF, June 8, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims was granted. Supplemental state court claims were remanded to the Court of Chancery.
Plaintiff’s Chancery Court complaint alleging trademark infringement, dilution, deceptive trade practices, counterfeiting, unfair competition and slander of title was removed to District Court. Defendant answered on December 28, 2005, but obtained leave to move to dismiss federal claims on February 7, 2006. The federal claims were dismissed because defendant merely filed its application and did not “use” the accused marks. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The fact that briefing has occurred in federal court is insufficient to persuade the court to maintain jurisdiction due to judicial economy.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims was granted. Supplemental state court claims were remanded to the Court of Chancery.
Plaintiff’s Chancery Court complaint alleging trademark infringement, dilution, deceptive trade practices, counterfeiting, unfair competition and slander of title was removed to District Court. Defendant answered on December 28, 2005, but obtained leave to move to dismiss federal claims on February 7, 2006. The federal claims were dismissed because defendant merely filed its application and did not “use” the accused marks. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The fact that briefing has occurred in federal court is insufficient to persuade the court to maintain jurisdiction due to judicial economy.
