Gucci Am., Inc. v. Bank of China
| Decision Date | 17 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 11–3934–cv,12–4557–cv.,s. 11–3934–cv |
| Citation | 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1445,768 F.3d 122 |
| Parties | GUCCI AMERICA, INC., Balenciaga America, Inc., Balenciaga, S.A., Bottega Veneta International S.A.R.L., Bottega Veneta, Inc., Luxury Goods International S.A., Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Bank of China, Appellant, WEIXING LI, DBA Redtagparty, DBA Myluxurybags.com, DBA Xpressdesginers.com, DBA Xpressdesigner.Net, DBA Designer Handbags, AKA Xin Li, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Andrew Rhys Davies (Bradley Stephen Pensyl, Pamela Rogers Chepiga, on the brief,) Allen & Overy LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Robert L. Weigel (Howard S. Hogan, Anne M. Coyle, Jennifer C. Halter, on the brief), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs–Appellees.
Before: LIVINGSTON, LYNCH, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges.
This case arises out of the legal efforts of a number of luxury goods retailers to protect their intellectual property and stop alleged counterfeiters from marketing fake merchandise over the Internet and then hiding the profits from the sale of their counterfeit products. This case was argued in tandem with a related case, Tiffany LLC v. China Merchants Bank, et al., Nos. 12–2317; 12–2330. We decide the Tiffany appeal in a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion.
Plaintiffs–Appellees Gucci America, Inc. (“Gucci”), Balenciaga America, Inc., Balenciaga, S.A., Bottega Veneta International S.A.R.L., Bottega Veneta, Inc., Luxury Goods International S.A., and Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. (“plaintiffs”) are manufacturers of well-known luxury handbags, clothing, jewelry, fragrances, and other products. Over the years, millions of consumers have been exposed to plaintiffs' trademarks through extensive advertising campaigns. As a result of this advertising, plaintiffs' brands and trademarks are among the most widely-recognized in the United States.
Plaintiffs assert that in or around June 2010, they discovered that certain unauthorized parties, including the defendants in this action, were selling counterfeit versions of plaintiffs' products on the Internet. Defendants advertised these products as guaranteed authentic. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants not only copied the designs, patterns, and color schemes associated with the plaintiffs' products, but also “expressly identif[ied] the counterfeit products as ‘Gucci,’ ‘Balenciaga,’ ‘Bottega Veneta’ and ‘YSL’ products.” J.A. 630. Defendants displayed authentic pictures of the plaintiffs' goods on websites, but purchasers received counterfeit versions that were not produced by the plaintiffs.1 Plaintiffs allege that defendants have manufactured and sold these counterfeit products without the permission, authorization, or approval of the plaintiffs. All told, defendants have allegedly violated at least 20 of plaintiffs' trademarks and have sold millions of dollars worth of counterfeit products to American consumers.
The present appeal by Bank of China (“the Bank” or “BOC”), the nonparty appellant, concerns the plaintiffs' efforts both to freeze the defendants' assets so that the profits of defendants' alleged counterfeiting can be recovered and to obtain the assistance of the Bank in gathering evidence of defendants' purportedly unlawful conduct. BOC appeals from: (1) an August 23, 2011 order granting plaintiffs' motion to compel the Bank to comply with a document subpoena and an asset freeze injunction and denying the Bank's cross-motion to modify the court's orders; (2) a May 18, 2012 order denying the Bank's motion to reconsider; and (3) a November 15, 2012 order holding the Bank in civil contempt and imposing monetary penalties.
For the reasons set forth herein, we first conclude that BOC's claim that the district court was without authority to issue orders restraining the defendants' assets pending adjudication, either because it lacks jurisdiction over the Bank or, alternatively, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999), is without merit. We vacate the August 23, 2011 and the May 18, 2012 orders, however, so that, on remand, the district court may consider whether it may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Bank to compel compliance with its orders2 and (if so) whether it should exercise such jurisdiction, properly applying principles of comity. We reverse the November 15, 2012 order holding the Bank in civil contempt and imposing civil monetary penalties.
On June 25, 2010, plaintiffs brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Weixing Li, Lijun Xu, and certain “John Does,” doing business as, inter alia, Redtagparty, Designer Handbags, Myluxurybags.com, Xpressdesigners.com, and Xpressdesigner.net, pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and related state law causes of action. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on October 4, 2010 to include Ting Xu and Kuelala.com as additional defendants. Plaintiffs subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with defendant Lijun Xu. No other defendants have appeared in this action.
Simultaneously with their initial complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in the district court. On June 25, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J. ) granted this motion, freezing defendants' assets and enjoining the defendants from selling counterfeit goods. On July 12, 2010, the district court converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction (“Asset Freeze Injunction”). This Asset Freeze Injunction, issued pursuant to Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that:
Defendants and their ... agents ... and all persons acting in concert or in participation with any of them, and any banks ... who receive actual notice of this order ... without prior approval of the Court [are] restrained and enjoined from transferring, disposing of, or secreting any money ... or other assets of Defendants....
J.A. 240. The plaintiffs had gathered evidence that, following the issuance of the TRO, certain defendants wired proceeds of their counterfeit sales to accounts at BOC. Therefore, the Asset Freeze Injunction expressly states that it applies to (but is not limited to) “any and all Bank of China accounts associated with or utilized by Weixing Li, Lijun Xu, Redtagparty, Myluxurybags.com and/or any of the other Defendants.” J.A. 241. Plaintiffs served the Bank with the Asset Freeze Injunction at its New York City branch on July 13, 2010.
BOC, the nonparty appellant, is not incorporated or headquartered anywhere in the United States and maintains its principal place of business in China. The Bank, which is owned in major part by the Chinese government, has a significant global presence (maintaining four branches in the United States) but only a portion of the Bank's worldwide activity takes place in New York. Gucci ECF No. 288 (citing OCC Evaluation Aug. 18, 2008) . BOC contends that bank officials who work in its two New York branches cannot search the records of the China-based offices, nor can they ascertain whether individuals have accounts at BOC branches outside of the United States.
Having served the Bank with the Asset Freeze Injunction, plaintiffs proceeded, on July 16, 2010, by serving BOC, at its New York City branch, with a subpoena requesting all documents concerning the “Defendants” and the “Defendants' accounts” (the “2010 Subpoena”). J.A. 1152. The 2010 Subpoena defines “Accounts” to include a variety of types of accounts “at Bank of China held by Defendants; including, but not limited to, any account or deposit in the name of Lijun Xu a/k/a Jack London” with an account number ending in 1235 or 2443. J.A. 1150. The 2010 Subpoena defines “Defendants” as “Weixing Li, Lijun Xu a/k/a Jack London, all doing business as Redtagparty, Myluxurybags.com, Xpressdesigner.net, Xpressdesigners.com, Designer Handbags, ABC Companies and John Does, as well as their officers, directors, agents, representatives, and all persons acting on their behalf.” J.A. 1150.
BOC informed plaintiffs that its New York City branch does not have possession or control over information located “in any other branch or office of the Bank of China” and that compliance with the subpoena would violate Chinese law. J.A. 773. The Bank produced responsive documents that were in the possession of its New York branch. It refused to produce responsive documents located in any of its branches or offices in China, however, notwithstanding plaintiffs' evidence suggesting that the proceeds of defendants' unlawful activity had been transferred there.3
On December 6, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel compliance with both the Asset Freeze Injunction and the 2010 Subpoena. The Bank filed its opposition and cross-moved to modify the district court's orders so as to terminate any provisions requiring the Bank to freeze defendants' assets held by BOC in China. The motions were fully submitted to the district court as of January 3, 2011.
After the motion to compel compliance with the 2010 Subpoena was submitted, on February 23, 2011, plaintiffs served a second subpoena (“2011 Subpoena”) on BOC. The 2011 Subpoena requests documents concerning accounts “held by Defendants or into which Defendants transferred funds” and specifically identifies six new BOC accounts by account number. The 2011 Subpoena defines “Defendants” much the same way as the 2010 Subpoena.4 J.A. 1162. After serving the 2011 Subpoena, plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On March 10,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sonterra Capital Master Fund v. Barclays Bank Plc
... ... 1-50, Barclays Capital, Inc., Defendants. 15-CV-3538 (VSB) United States District Court, S.D. New ... 2002) (quoting Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. , 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995) ). B. Rule 12(b)(2) ... jurisdiction are contacts with the United States as a whole." Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li , 768 F.3d 122, 142 n.21 (2d Cir. 2014). Further, ... ...
-
In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 50 U.S.C. § 1705
... ... of Columbia served two Chinese banksBank One and Bank Twowith a grand jury subpoena, and a third Chinese bankBank ... 2018, representatives from Bank Three met with the China Banking Regulatory Commission ("the Commission") and the ... 1987) ); see also United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc. , 498 U.S. 292, 301, 111 S.Ct. 722, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 ... See Gucci America Inc. v. Weixing Li (" Gucci II "), 768 F.3d 122, ... See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li (" Gucci I "), No. 10 CIV 4974 RJS, ... ...
-
In re Micron Tech., Inc.
... ... , 637 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ; In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 545 F.3d 304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (issuing writ of ... City of Holyoke , 362 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2004) ; Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li , 768 F.3d 122, 13536 (2d Cir. 2014) ; Holzsager v ... ] practice in any manner consistent with federal law"); see, e.g., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 [108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 ... ...
-
Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec
... ... Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., Amicus Curaie for The Chamber of ... jurisdiction unless I was sure I was right, and I am not sure the Majority is right. I would affirm the judgment ... 604 (6th Cir.2013) ; Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir.2012) ; Viasystems, Inc. v ... and designating a local agent.); see also Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 137 n. ?15 (2d ... ...
-
New York Tests Daimler's Limits With Its Consent-To-Jurisdiction Rule For Foreign Companies Registering To Do Business In The State
...In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, 745 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2014); Sonera Holding, 750 F.3d 221. [6] See Gucci Am. v. Bank of China, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014). The Gucci court also found that the defendant's failure to timely object to personal jurisdiction did not waive that defense, be......
-
Luxury Brands Face Setback In Efforts To 'Follow The Money' Against Online Merchants
...and selling counterfeit versions to consumers. Bank of China is appealing the case, Gucci America, Inc., et. al. v. Li et. al., 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (Gucci/BOC), as a Plaintiffs in the Gucci/BOC case obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order against the online merchants, freez......
-
Second Circuit Ends 'Doing Business' Test In New York For General Jurisdiction
...state corporate registration laws.13 It is likely that such issues will be at the forefront of post-Daimler jurisprudence. Footnotes 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014). Prior to Gucci America, the Second Circuit recognized but did not reconcile the tension under New York law between the "doing bus......
-
New Court Decisions Expose Non-U.S. Banks With U.S. Branches To New Risks Of Litigation In American Courts
...US Dist LEXIS 89904 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015) (no personal jurisdiction arising from single wire transfer). 2 Gucci Am. v. Bank of China, 768 F.3d 122 (2d. Cir. 3 The Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment (applicable to the federal Government) and Fourteenth Amendmen......
-
Table of Cases
...AD2d 499 (2d Dept 2001), §9:430 Guberman v. Rudder , 85 AD3d 683, 927 NYS2d 32 (1st Dept 2011), §36:191, 36:230 Gucci America, Inc. v. Li, 768 F3d 122 (2d Cir 2014), §7:59 Guddemi v. Rozzi , 210 AD2d 479, 621 NYS2d 354 (2d Dept 1994), app dism, 85 NY2d 966, 629 NYS2d 725 (1995), leave to ap......
-
Too Far from Home: Why Daimlers at Home Standard Does Not Apply to Personal Jurisdiction Challenges in Anti-terrorism Act Cases
...Goodyear. See supra note 135 and accompanying text.142. See infra note 172 and accompanying text. 143. Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014); Sokolow, 2014 WL 6811395, at *2.144. See Gucci, 768 F.3d at 135 ("Aside from an 'exceptional case' . . . a corporation is at hom......
-
Registration, Fairness, and General Jurisdiction
...Id. (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 755-76 (2014)). 351. Id. 352. Id. at *13 n.15 (citing Gucci Am., Inc., v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 136 n.15 (2d Cir. 2014); Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. China Merchs. Bank, 589 Fed. Appx. 550, 553 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting that "perhaps for this reaso......
-
Trials
...court did not determine nonparty in active concert or participation with party specifically enjoined); Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 142-44 (2d Cir. 2014) (contempt inappropriate for nonparty bank because subpoena at issue not clear and unambiguous); Wallace v. Kmart Corp., ......