including Jolania, who makes this motion to dismiss.
In arguing that Count X does not state a claim under the Trademark Act, Jolania urges that the act is directed against trademark infringers, not their landlords. For example, the remedies section of the Trademark Act targets violators who "use", "reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate" registered marks without permission. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). According to Jolania, the statute does not provide a cause of action for damages against someone who indirectly aids the violation of the statute.
The court disagrees. Although there is no explicit language in 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), there is judicial precedent that interprets the statute as including a cause of action for contributory infringement of trademarks. In Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 72 L. Ed. 2d 606, 102 S. Ct. 2182 (1982), the Court considered whether a drug manufacturer could be held liable for the infringing actions of pharmacists who purchased its products. The Court ruled that the drug manufacturer could be held liable if one of two situations occurred. First, the drug company could be liable if it suggested, directly or indirectly, that the pharmacists should mislabel its products. Id. at 851. Second, the company could be liable if it sold its products "to retailers whom they knew or had reason to know were engaging in infringing practices." Id. at 852. A manufacturer who follows either course will be "contributorily responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit." Id. at 854.
The theory of contributory infringement has not been asserted widely outside of the manufacturer/distributor context. However, there are cases in which the concept has been applied to landlords. In Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corporation v. Concession Services, Inc., 955 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1992), the court of appeals agreed with a district court holding that the contributory infringement test in Inwood Laboratories applied to a flea market operator who leased stalls to retailers selling infringing goods. The court reversed on the facts, however, because the evidence on the record did not support a finding of contributory infringement.
Based on these authorities, this court holds that plaintiff has pleaded a legally sufficient cause of action against Jolania in Count X for contributory infringement. Whether the evidence supports the claim remains to be seen.
Jolania next argues that the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count XI.
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "that are so related to claims in the action with . . . original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state law claim raises novel or complicated issues of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
As described earlier, Count XI is based on New York Real Property Law § 231(2). Jolania argues that supplemental jurisdiction over the § 231(2) claim is improper because this case presents an issue of first impression under state law - whether or not a landlord will be liable for trademark infringement carried out by his tenants. Jolania finds indications that the New York courts may intend to limit the statute's reach to "penal law violations directly related to the premises . . . [like] prostitution, gambling or narcotics." Friends of Yelverton, Inc. v. 163rd St. Improvement Council, Inc., 135 Misc. 2d 275, 514 N.Y.S.2d 841, 844 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1986).
Plaintiffs argue that § 231(2) merely codified the preexisting duty of a landlord to prevent a known illegality on his premises, and that therefore the present case does not present a novel issue of law. Plaintiffs also point out that § 231(2) has been applied to violations outside the criminal sphere, contrary to the suggestion in Yelverton. For example, in State v. Rock, 147 Misc. 2d 231, 555 N.Y.S.2d 584 (Sup. Ct. Saratoga Cnty. 1990), the court held a landowner liable for an illegal solid waste management facility operated by the lessee with his knowledge. Plaintiffs argue that supplemental jurisdiction is proper.
The court is of the view that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Count XI is appropriate. The federal and state causes of action relate to the exact same set of facts. To litigate them in two separate actions would be an unwarranted waste of time and judicial resources. The legal issue is not sufficiently complicated to warrant declining jurisdiction.
The court denies Jolania's motion to dismiss Counts X and XI.
Dated: New York, New York
June 21, 1994
THOMAS P. GRIESA
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.