## Facts

- MGA Entertainment, Inc. (MGA), a California company that develops and distributes children’s products, created and sold a handbag-shaped toy container called “Pooey Puitton.”
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (Louis Vuitton), a French luxury fashion company, owns trademark rights in both the European Union (EU) and the United States.
- Around December 2018, Louis Vuitton filed an action in a French court asserting its EU trademarks, alleging that the “Pooey Puitton” name and the handbag-shaped toy infringed and disparaged Louis Vuitton’s EU marks.
- In the French action, Louis Vuitton sought relief in France, including court orders aimed at products held by EU businesses that had purchased the toy.
- MGA then filed a declaratory-judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking a declaration that the “Pooey Puitton” name and product did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton’s U.S. trademarks under the Lanham Act.
- MGA alleged an “actual controversy” existed because Louis Vuitton’s U.S. trademark rights were “identical” (or visually similar) to the EU trademarks asserted in France and, in MGA’s view, the French lawsuit effectively asserted claims against MGA and its customers in the United States.
- MGA also relied on allegations about Louis Vuitton’s prior trademark enforcement, including suits involving alleged parodies, to argue that U.S. enforcement against MGA was a realistic possibility.
- Louis Vuitton moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), contending there was no Article III case or controversy regarding U.S. trademark rights.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign lawsuit asserting EU trademarks—together with allegations that the EU and U.S. marks are identical or similar and that the trademark owner has previously pursued infringement suits—creates an Article III “actual controversy” supporting U.S. declaratory-judgment jurisdiction over alleged infringement or dilution of U.S. trademarks.

## Decision

- The court granted Louis Vuitton’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
- The court held MGA failed to allege facts showing a substantial, immediate dispute between the parties concerning Louis Vuitton’s U.S. trademark rights and MGA’s “Pooey Puitton” product.
- The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, terminating the case.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may decide declaratory-judgment actions only when Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement is met.
- The Declaratory Judgment Act does not create jurisdiction; it provides a remedy only when a substantial controversy between parties with adverse legal interests exists and has sufficient immediacy and reality.
- Trademark rights are territorial; enforcement activity concerning EU trademarks in a foreign forum, by itself, does not amount to an assertion of U.S. trademark rights.
- Similarity between a party’s foreign trademark rights and its U.S. trademark rights does not, without more, create a justiciable U.S. dispute.
- A plaintiff must allege concrete conduct indicating that the trademark owner has asserted, or is about to assert, U.S. rights against the plaintiff relating to the product at issue; generalized fear of future U.S. litigation is not enough.
- Allegations about a defendant’s prior enforcement suits, without a specific communication, threat, or other U.S.-focused action directed at the plaintiff over the challenged product, do not establish an actual controversy.
- Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate when the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by additional pleading.

## Conclusion

Because Louis Vuitton’s identified enforcement conduct was a French action based on EU trademarks and MGA did not allege any concrete assertion or credible threat by Louis Vuitton to enforce its U.S. trademarks against MGA regarding “Pooey Puitton,” the court found no Article III actual controversy and dismissed the declaratory-judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with prejudice and without leave to amend.


MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81397 (2019)