Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alsoy v. Ciceksepeti Internet Hizmetleri Anonim Sirketi

United States District Court, D. Delaware

January 12, 2017

DIDEM GUNEY ALSOY and MEHMET ALIALSOY and BONAPORT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
v.
CICEKSEPETI INTERNET HIZMETLERI ANONIM SIRKETI, a Turkish company, Defendant.

          Larry R. Wood, Jr., Esquire and Adam V. Orlacchio, Esquire of Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiffs. Of Counsel: Steven M. Johnston, Esquire and Timothy D. Pecsenye of Blank Rome LLP.

          David E. Moore, Esquire and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant. Of Counsel: Aaron J. Weinzierl, Esquire of Foley & Lardner LLP.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROBINSON District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On February 20, 2015, Didem Guney Alsoy, Mehmet Ali Alsoy, and Bonaport, LLC ("plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Ciceksepeti internet Hizmetleri Anonim Sirketi ("defendant"), alleging violations of: (1) the reverse domain name hijacking provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v); (2) Delaware's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. § 2532 ("DTPA"); and (3) Delaware common law unfair competition. (D.I. 1) Presently before the court are defendant's motions to dismiss or to stay. (D.I. 10) This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Didem Guney Alsoy and her husband Mehmet Ali Alsoy are Turkish nationals who have been involved in various food-distributing businesses in Turkey, including a company named BonnyFood A.S., which once owned the Turkish trademark "BonnyFood" and the Turkish domain name <bonnyfood.com.tr>. (D.I. 1 at¶¶ 10-15) Ms. Alsoy registered the U.S. domain name <bonnyfood.com> in 2008 and, at some point in 2009, BonnyFood A.S. began using it.[1] (D.I. 1 at¶¶ 11, 21) Since 2013, the Alsoys, BonnyFood A.S., and various partners and corporate officers have been embroiled in litigation in Turkish courts over allegations of fraud and misconduct. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 16-22) During this litigation, BonnyFood A.S. "was having trouble meeting its financial obligations, "[2] and the company sold the Turkish "BonnyFood" trademark in a judicial auction.[3] (D.I. 1 at¶18) Defendant is the current owner of the Turkish "BonnyFood" trademark and the <bonnyfood.com.tr> domain name. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 22)

         In August 2014, the Alsoys established Bonaport LLC ("Bonaport") under Delaware law. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 23) Bonaport "is a marketing outsourcing company in the food industry primarily [that] has clients in Turkey, U.K. and New Jersey." (D.I. ¶ 24) Bonaport and Mr. Alsoy are the current registrants of the <bonnyfood.com> domain name, and Bonaport maintains a website at that address. (D.I. ¶ 24) In September 2014, Bonaport applied for the U.S. trademark BONNYFOOD.[4] (D.I. 1 at¶25) The USPTO published the mark for opposition on May 26, 2015, and the application is currently pending.[5] (D.I. 1 at¶25)

         In October 2014, defendant petitioned the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") under a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") proceeding to gain the registration of the <bonnyfood.com> domain name. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 29) On January 29, 2015, a WIPO panel ordered Mr. Alsoy and Bonaport LLC to transfer the U.S. domain name to defendant. See WIPO Case No. D2014-1775. Pursuant to UDRP policies[6] and the Lanham Act, plaintiffs commenced this action on February 20, 2015.

         Defendant now moves under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Delaware state law claims. (D.I. 11 at 8) Defendant also moves to dismiss the Lanham Act[7] claims on prudential grounds and international comity. (D.I. 11 at 15) Alternatively, defendant requests a stay pending the outcome of the litigation in Turkey. (D.I. 1 at 15)

         III. MOTION TO DISMISS

         A. Failure To State A Claim

         1. Standard of review

         A motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (internal quotation marks omitted) (interpreting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). Consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings in Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Third Circuit requires a three-part analysis when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d. Cir. 2016). In the first step, the court "must tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Next, the court "should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Lastly, "[w]hen there are well- Resolution Policy (August 26, 1999), https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en. pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief." Id. (citations omitted).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Under Twombly and Iqbal, the complaint must sufficiently show that the pleader has a plausible claim. McDermott v. Clondalkin Grp., Civ. No. 15-2782, 2016 WL 2893844, at *3 (3d Cir. May 18, 2016). Although "an exposition of [the] legal argument" is unnecessary, Skinner v. Switzer,562 U.S. 521 (2011), a complaint should provide reasonable notice under the circumstances. Id. at 530. A filed pleading must be "to the best of the person&#39;s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, " such that "the factual contents have evidentiary support, or if so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." Anderson v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist, 574 F.App'x 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)). So long as plaintiffs do not use "boilerplate and conclusory allegations" and "accompany their legal theory with factual allegations that make their theoretically viable claim plausible, " the Third Circuit has held "pleading upon information and belief ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.