Civil Procedure - Venue - Trademark Dispute

By Deborah Elkins
Published: June 29, 2009

An Alexandria U.S. District Court grants defendant’s motion to transfer this trademark dispute over a rotary dental bar from the Eastern District of Virginia to South Carolina, because this case has only a slight connection to Virginia and a stronger connection to Ohio and South Carolina, and the balance of convenience to parties and witnesses favors transfer to the District of South Carolina.

The parties are competitors in the dental tool industry. Plaintiffs are a German corporation with its principal place of business in Legmo, Germany and its subsidiary and exclusive U.S. distributor Komet USA LLC, a South Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in Rock Hill, S.C. Defendant Abrasive Technology Inc. is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Lewis Center, Ohio. The parties dispute whether defendant’s rotary dental tool with two adjacently spaced annular grooves on its shank infringes plaintiff’s trademark.

It is undisputed that plaintiff’s home forum is either in Germany or South Carolina, where plaintiffs’ principal places of business are located, and that defendants’ home forum is in Ohio. Defendant does not have any office space, facilities or employees in Virginia. The mere fact that customers in Virginia may have purchased rotary dental instruments from GBL or Abrasive is an insufficient connection to justify retaining a case arising out of the alleged misuse of a trademark on products distributed by an Ohio company. In sum, the court finds that GBL’s election to bring suit in the Eastern District of Virginia is entitled to minimal weight because it is not GBL’s home forum and the case lacks sufficient connections to Virginia.

The residence of the parties and witnesses favors transfer away from Virginia because only one witness, GBL’s sales representative, is from Virginia.

Motion to transfer venue granted.

Gebr. Brasseler Gmbh v. Abrasive Technology Inc. (Lee, J.) No. 1:08cv1246, March 27, 2009; USDC at Alexandria, Va. VLW 009-3-176, 16 pp.


© Copyright 2010 Virginia Lawyers Media. All Rights Reserved.

POST A COMMENT

Today's Top Opinion

Municipal - No Inverse Condemnation From Flooding
In a case of first impression, a Fairfax Circuit Court says a one-time incident of flooding does not support a cause of action for inverse condemnation against VDOT and Fairfax County.
Livingston v. County of Fairfax (VLW 010-8-051) (10 pp.)

GET THE VLW DAILY ALERT

The Daily Alert from Virginia Lawyers Weekly brings you the latest legal news every morning in your e-mail. You’ll get headline news, a link to the day’s Top Opinion and more!

Click here for more info.

E-mail Sign Up:


Feeds/Web 2.0: