New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Noticing Contents of Corporate Website for Fact of What Is Displayed — Contract Dispute Over Proper Use of Trade Name

Download PDF

Saint Laurie Ltd. v Yves Saint Laurent Am., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42621 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015):

On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff Saint Laurie Ltd. ("Plaintiff" or "Saint Laurie") filed the present action. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 23, 2013, [*2]  against Defendants Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., Yves Saint Laurent S.A.S. (collectively, "Defendants YSL"), Kering S.A. ("Kering"), Kering Americas, Inc. ("KAI"), and Luxury Goods International S .A. ("LGI") (collectively, "Defendants"). Saint Laurie asserted eight Claims against Defendants: (1) breach of contract; (2) trademark infringement, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (3) false designation of origin, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) trademark dilution, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (5) trademark infringement under New York common law; (6) trademark dilution, pursuant to New York General Business Law § 360 (1); (7) unfair competition under New York common law; and (8) unlawful deceptive acts and practices, pursuant to New York General Business Law § 349.

***

The 1975 Agreement provided that a YSL store in New York, New York would have its sign altered to "Saint Laurent Rive Gauche" and that "Saint Laurent Rive Gauche" labeled men's clothing only could be sold [*5]  in Saint Laurent Rive Gauche stores. (1975 Agreement ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) The parties also agreed that YSL's advertisements and labeling pertaining to men's clothing sold under the Yves Saint Laurent or Saint Laurent Rive Gauche trademarks would state "Yves Saint Laurent" or "Saint Laurent Rive Gauche," respectively. (Id. ¶ 5.) The 1974 Defendants were prohibited from selling or advertising "men's clothing under the trade name 'Saint Laurent' alone." (Id. ¶ 35.) In return, Plaintiff agreed that "advertising and/or labelling by [Saint Laurie] in connection with French styled or modeled clothing [would] be accompanied by a prominent display of the name 'Saint Laurie Ltd.'" (Id. ¶ 9.) The 1975 Agreement was to remain in effect as long as Plaintiff sold men's clothing under the Saint Laurie trade name. (Id. ¶ 10.) Finally, the 1975 Agreement provided that "[a] party aggrieved by a breach of this agreement shall be entitled to specific performance as a remedy." (Id. ¶ 13.)

***

2. Plaintiff's Purported Breaches of the Agreements

Defendants contend that Saint Laurie's claims for breach of contract and specific performance must be dismissed because Plaintiff has breached the 1975 Agreement and 1982 Agreement. Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's website violates the 1975 Agreement because Plaintiff advertises itself as "Saint Laurie" and "Saint Laurie-Merchant Tailors" without a prominent display of "Ltd."13 In the 1975 Agreement, Saint Laurie agreed,

   [A]dvertising and/or labelling by SL in connection with French styled or modelled clothing will be accompanied by a prominent display of the name 'Saint Laurie Ltd.' and will be done in such a manner so as not to be misleading as to the origin of the goods and not to be confusingly similar to Yves Saint Laurent and/or Saint Laurent Rive Gauche. [*23]

 (1975 Agreement ¶ 9.) Defendants do not contend that Plaintiff's website uses "Saint Laurie" in connection with French styled or modelled clothing. Rather, Defendants assert that the mere use of "Saint Laurie" constitutes a breach of the 1975 Agreement.

13   The Court takes judicial notice of Saint Laurie's website. See Magnoni v. Smith & Laquercia, LLP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 497, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Patsy's Italian Rest., Inc. v. Banas, 575 F. Supp. 2d 427, 443 n. 18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) ("It is generally proper to take judicial notice of articles and Web sites published on the Internet."), aff'd, 658 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2011); ECF No. 23, Normand Decl. Exs. 27-28. In addition, the authenticity of the website and its printouts have not been challenged. The Court, however, will not take judicial notice of Andrew Kozzin's Declaration, (ECF No. 36, Rozzin Decl. ¶¶ 10-18), which attempts to explain the meaning of "French styled or modeled clothing." Novie v. Vill. of Montebello, No. 10 Civ. 9436, 2012 WL 3542222, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2012) (collecting cases finding that "it is improper for a court to consider declarations and affidavits on a motion to dismiss").

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice