Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Intern. Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | ANHEUSER-BUSC,INCORPORATE,No. 98-1816,A,98-1816 |
| Parties | ppellant, v. SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Douglas N. Masters, Chicago, IL, argued (Edward G. Wierzbicki and Bradley Cohn, Chicago, IL, Charles A. Siegel and E. Michael Murphy, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Lawrence Kill, New York, N.Y., argued (Sherri C. Strand, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellee.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL, 1 Circuit Judges.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("Anheuser") appeals the district court's 2 order dismissing Anheuser's declaratory judgment action against Supreme International Corp. ("Supreme") after refusing to apply the first-filed rule. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In January 1996, Anheuser began a national advertising campaign for Bud Ice beer that used a penguin in its design. In September 1996, Supreme acquired rights in penguin trademarks held by Munsingwear, Inc., which had been using penguin designs on golf and apparel since 1954. Beginning in October 1996, Supreme began discussing with Anheuser the possibility of selling clothing to Anheuser in connection with the Bud Ice advertising campaign. In November 1996, a representative of Supreme met in St. Louis, Missouri, with representatives of Anheuser. During this meeting, Supreme objected to Anheuser's use of a penguin design on Bud Ice apparel. Later that month, Supreme and Anheuser discussed Anheuser's use of the penguin design as a possible infringement of Supreme's penguin trademark.
On December 11, 1996, Supreme sent a letter to Anheuser demanding that Anheuser stop all use of the penguin design in its Bud Ice campaign. The letter stated that, unless Anheuser were to respond within five days, Supreme had authorized its attorneys to take legal action. On December 19, 1996, Anheuser filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Missouri (the "Missouri action"), seeking a declaration that Anheuser's use of the penguin in the Bud Ice campaign was neither infringing nor diluting Supreme's rights in the penguin trademarks. On December 24, 1996, Supreme filed its own action in the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida action"), claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive business practices.
Anheuser filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Florida action, and the Florida court granted the motion, staying the Florida action pending the Missouri court's decision to apply the first-filed rule. 3 See Supreme Int'l Corp. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 972 F.Supp. 604 (S.D.Fla.1997). Supreme then filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the Missouri action. The Missouri court granted Supreme's motion, dismissing the Missouri action under the compelling circumstances exception to the first-filed rule. Anheuser appealed. The Florida action has since resumed, with Anheuser having answered Supreme's complaint, and both parties having served discovery requests.
We will reverse the district court's refusal to apply the first-filed rule only if the district court abused its discretion. See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 989 F.2d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir.1993). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
The district court identified the two red flags that indicate the presence of compelling circumstances. First, the district court noted that Anheuser was on notice that Supreme was going to file suit. See id. at 1007. Supreme's letter to Anheuser gave Anheuser five days to respond to avoid a law suit. Instead of responding to the letter, Anheuser filed the Missouri action. Second, the district court noted that Anheuser's action was for a declaratory judgment. See id.
In addition to finding both red flags, the district court found the presence of other Northwest factors. Less than two weeks passed from the time Supreme sent its cease and desist letter to Anheuser to the time Supreme filed the Florida action. This short period of time suggests that Anheuser raced to the courthouse to usurp Supreme's forum choice. See BASF Corp. v. Symington, 50 F.3d 555, 557-58 (8th Cir.1995). In addition, the district court found that Anheuser had not alleged any adverse effect on the Bud Ice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Med-Tec Iowa, Inc. v. Nomos Corp.
...first establishes jurisdiction in order to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings."); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) ("The well-established rule is that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, `the first court in which jurisdict......
-
Central States Industrial Supply v. Mccullough
...first establishes jurisdiction in order to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings."); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) ("The well-established rule is that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, `the first court in which jurisdict......
-
Young v. Wells Fargo & Co.
...Inc., 989 F.2d at 1005. It is within a district court's discretion to apply the first-filed rule. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999). Ross's California Action brings suit against Wells Fargo, as well as several other mortgage servicers, for wrongf......
-
Cruisecompete, LLC v. Smolinski & Assocs., Inc.
...not required by law to forbear but may do so as a matter of comity and to avoid duplicate litigation.”); Anheuser–Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) (finding doctrine is subject to “abuse of discretion” review). Because the rule stems from the “doctrine of ......