SnoWizard, Inc. v. Snow Ball's Chance, Ltd

Filing 21

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 8 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 9/24/15. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SNOWIZARD, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

CASE NO. 15-1002

SNOW BALL’S CHANCE, LTD.

SECTION: “G”(1)
ORDER

In this litigation, SnoWizard, Inc. (“SnoWizard”) seeks a judgment “(1) declaring that
SnoWizard, Inc. continues to own a valid and enforceable federally registered trademark in ‘CAJUN
RED HOT®’ and ‘WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS®,[’] as the court and jury in the consolidated
cases previously determined; (2) that Defendant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from
attacking the validity of the registered trademarks CAJUN RED HOT® and WHITE CHOCOLATE
& CHIPS®; (3) ordering the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board [(“TTAB”)] to dismiss pending
cancellation proceedings nos. 92060914 and 92060915 filed by Defendant; (4) attorneys’ fees, costs,
expenses, interest and any further relief as the Court deems just or equitable under the
circumstances.”1 Pending before the Court is Snow Ball’s Chance’s “Motion to Dismiss and Strike
Under Rule 12”2 in which it urges the Court to dismiss the “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
of Trademark Validity”3 filed by SnoWizard. Having reviewed the motion, memorandum in support,
memorandum in opposition, the supplemental memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court will grant the motion.

1

Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 18.

2

Rec. Doc. 8.

3

Rec. Doc. 1.

I. Background
On February 20, 2015, Snow Ball’s Chance filed two petitions for the cancellation of the
trademarks “CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS” with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.4 On April 1, 2015, SnoWizard
filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment in this Court, requesting that the Court declare that
it continues to own valid and enforceable federally registered trademarks for the snowball flavors
“CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS.”5
SnoWizard’s ownership of valid and enforceable trademarks for these snowball flavors was
decided by a jury empaneled by this Court in Southern Snow Manufacturing Company, Inc. v.
SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-9170.6 In 2006, Southern Snow Manufacturing Co.,
Inc. (“Southern Snow”), filed a Petition and a Supplementing and Amending Petition, in the 24th
Judicial District Court of the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana, against SnoWizard for violation of the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and U.S. trademark law.7 SnoWizard subsequently removed
that case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, invoking federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.8 Southern Snow, along with other plaintiffs,
subsequently filed three amended complaints bringing additional claims, including claims under

4

Rec. Docs. 1-4; 1-5.

5

Rec. Doc 1 at p. 18.

6

S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 06-9170, Rec. Doc. 665; Rec. Doc.

7

Id. at Rec. Doc. 1-1.

8

Id. at Rec. Doc. 1.

709-1.

2

Louisiana state trademark law and civil RICO statutes.9 SnoWizard asserted counterclaims against
Southern Snow for infringement and dilution of multiple asserted state and federal trademarks,
unfair competition under federal and state law, and patent infringement.10 After more than six years
of litigation, the matter was tried before a jury in this Court beginning on February 19, 2013.11 Of
particular relevance to the instant case, the jury in that matter found that SnoWizard possessed
federally registered trademarks for “CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS,”
and the Court issued its Judgment on Jury Verdict accordingly.12 The plaintiffs in that action
appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Federal
Circuit subsequently affirmed this Court’s verdict concerning SnoWizard’s ownership of the
trademarks.13 The plaintiff’s petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was
denied.14
On February 20, 2015, over a year after this Court issued its final judgment affirming the
validity of SnoWizard’s trademarks,“CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS,”
the entity named Snow Ball’s Chance, a snowball vendor that was not a party to the prior litigation,15

9

Id. at Rec. Docs. 113; 167; 412.

10

Id. at Rec. Docs. 38; 168; 414.

11

Id. at Rec. Doc. 654.

12

Id. at Rec. Docs. 661-3 at 14–20; 665 (“18. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
judgment is rendered in favor of SnoWizard, Inc. . . . declaring that SnoWizard, Inc. owns a valid and enforceable
federally registered trademark in CAJUN RED HOT . . . [and] WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS.”).
13

14

Id. at Rec. Doc. 734 at p. 17.
Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 6.

15

SnoWizard claims that Snow Ball’s Chance is in privity with the parties in the prior litigation because
Snow Ball Chance’s counsel, Mark Andrews, who was also counsel to the parties in the prior suit, is “simply
recruiting parties who have no interest whatsoever in the trademarks at issue, or in any of the other issues in the
consolidated cases, in order to re-litigate by proxy unsuccessful claims and issues on behalf of Southern Snow and

3

filed two petitions with the TTAB for the cancellation of SnoWizard’s trademarks “CAJUN RED
HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS.”16 According to SnoWizard, “in response to [Snow
Ball’s Chance’s] [] petitions for cancellations,” it then filed a complaint in this Court requesting that
the Court affirm the validity of the trademarks through a declaratory judgment action.17 The
complaint requested judgment in its favor:
1) declaring that SnoWizard, Inc. continues to own a valid and enforceable federally
registered trademark in “CAJUN RED HOT®” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE &
CHIPS®, [”] as the court and jury in the consolidated cases previously determined;
2) that Defendant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from attacking the validity
of the registered trademarks CAJUN RED HOT® and WHITE CHOCOLATE &
CHIPS®; 3) ordering the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss pending
cancellation proceedings nos. 92060914 and 92060915 filed by Defendant; 4)
attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, interest and any further relief as the Court deems just
or equitable under the circumstances.18
In response, Snow Ball’s Chance filed a motion to dismiss SnoWizard’s complaint for declaratory
relief.19 SnoWizard filed its opposition on June 9, 2015.20 The TTAB has stayed the cancellation
proceedings pending the outcome of the instant action.21
II. Parties’ Arguments
A.

Snow Ball’s Chance’s Arguments in Favor of Dismissal
Snow Ball’s Chance moves to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Snow Ingredients.” Id. at p. 8. As will be explained infra, the Court need not reach the issue of privity.
16

Rec. Docs. 1-4; 1-5.

17

Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 18.

18

Id.

19

Rec. Doc. 8.

20

Rec. Doc. 14.

21

Rec. Doc. 8-1 at p. 1.

4

12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well as under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.22 Snow Ball’s Chance also moves to strike the pages of
SnoWizard’s complaint that discuss allegations regarding the prior litigation as well as allegations
against attorney Andrews under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).23
Snow Ball’s Chance contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case and
therefore the claims should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
because neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor the case law supply a cause of action.24 Moreover,
Snow Ball’s Chance asserts that injunctive and declaratory judgment remedies are discretionary and
“short-circuiting and preempting a properly instituted federal-agency proceeding by filing a
declaratory-judgment action is improper and unfavored.”25 Additionally, Snow Ball’s Chance argues
that the Court does not have jurisdiction, as alleged by SnoWizard, under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)
because that statute provides only for an appeal of a final determination by the TTAB.26 Snow Ball’s
Chance contends that there has been no final determination in either of the two TTAB cancellation
proceedings because those proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of this case.27
Therefore, Snow Ball’s Chance contends that the proper forum for SnoWizard’s claim is not in the
District Court, but instead in the TTAB proceedings, where SnoWizard can make the same

22

Id. at pp. 7–8.

23

Id. at p. 8.

24

Id. at p. 1.

25

Id. at pp. 4,7.

26

Id. at p. 3.

27

Id.

5

arguments it has made in the instant action.28 Snow Ball’s Chance contends that, even assuming the
Court has jurisdiction to hear the claims and even if a claim had been properly stated against Snow
Ball’s Chance, the Court could still exercise its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to
dismiss the case.29
Snow Ball’s Chance also argues that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the only allegation against Snow Ball’s Chance is “the
unsubstantiated assertion that Snow Ball’s Chance was ‘recruited’ ‘in order to re-litigate by
proxy.’”30 Snow Ball’s Chance contends, however, that even that allegation was not specifically
pled but rather only an implied allegation.31 Snow Ball’s Chance argues that because all of
SnoWizard’s claims are against entities that are not in privity with Snow Ball’s Chance, SnoWizard
has failed to state an actionable claim against it.32
Finally, Snow Ball’s Chance argues that allegations in the complaint regarding the prior
litigation and allegations of barratry made against attorney Andrews should be stricken under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).33 Snow Ball’s Chance contends that the pages of allegations
about the prior litigation are immaterial to this litigation as they pertain to different parties and that
the accusations against attorney Andrews are “immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous.”34

28

Id. at pp. 3–4.

29

Id. at p. 4.

30

Id. at p. 4.

31

Id. at pp. 4–5.

32

Id at p. 5.

33

Id. at p. 8.

34

Id.

6

B.

Plaintiff’s Arguments in Opposition
SnoWizard asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides for jurisdiction over trademark claims, 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a),
which provides for jurisdiction for claims under the Lanham Act, and under the doctrine of ancillary
jurisdiction.35 Additionally, SnoWizard contends that it has stated a claim under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, arguing that the case involves a “definite and concrete dispute” because the petitions
for cancellation filed before the TTAB leave “no uncertainty” that Snow Ball’s Chance seeks to
offer the trademarked items in exactly the same manner that the Court found constituted
infringement in the Judgment on Jury Verdict.36 Lastly, SnoWizard argues that the allegations Snow
Ball’s Chance seeks to strike are questions of fact which “cannot be decided on motion to strike.”37
SnoWizard contends that 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) provides for original jurisdiction over civil
actions arising under Acts of Congress relating to trademarks and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) provides for
original jurisdiction over all actions arising under the Lanham Act.38 SnoWizard contends that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case because it brings a claim pursuant to the Lanham
Act and the Lanham Act provides that federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the TTAB
over issues relating to the registration and cancellation of trademarks. Here, SnoWizard seeks a
judgment “declaring the validity and enforceability of the federally registered Marks, declaring
SnoWizard’s rights to the federal registrations of the Marks, and ordering the TTAB to dismiss

35

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 3.

36

Id. at pp. 8–9.

37

Id. at p. 15.

38

Id. at p. 3.

7

Snow Ball’s Chance’s petitions for cancellation.”39 SnoWizard contends that the Court’s Judgment
on Jury Verdict is enforceable against Snow Ball’s Chance as the “agent or proxy” of Southern
Snow and Snow Ingredients.40 Therefore, it asserts that the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) should be denied.41
SnoWizard additionally asserts that the Court has ancillary jurisdiction to interpret and
enforce its own prior judgment under the precedent of Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Quinn-L
Capital Corp.42 SnoWizard argues that Snow Ball’s Chance’s petitions for cancellation in the TTAB
would “‘effectively nullify’ the Judgment on Jury Verdict by purporting to reverse this Court’s
orders therein declaring that SnoWizard’s registrations of the Marks are valid and enforceable.”43
Furthermore, it argues that “in the event the TTAB were to grant [Snow Ball’s Chance’s] petition
and cancel SnoWizard’s registration of the Marks, and if [Snow Ball’s Chance] then were to attempt
to use the Marks on or in connection with its snowball flavorings . . . then arguably [Snow Ball’s
Chance] would be in violation of this Court’s Order dated April 24, 2014 in the Consolidated Cases
enjoining Southern Snow, Snow Ingredients, ‘and those persons in active concert or participation
with them...’ from using the Marks.”44
Next, SnoWizard contests the motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

39

Id. at p. 4.

40

Id. at p. 13.

41

Id. at p. 2.

42

960 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1992).

43

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 5.

44
Id. (emphasis in original) (citing S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 069170, Rec. Doc. 732).

8

12(b)(6), arguing that it has sufficiently pled a cause of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act
by demonstrating that there is a case or controversy.45 SnoWizard asserts that, like in Starter Corp.
v. Converse,46 cited by the Fifth Circuit as an example of a trademark dispute suitable for declaratory
judgment, there is “no uncertainty” that Snow Ball’s Chance seeks to offer the trademarked items
in exactly the same manner the Court found to infringe the marks in the Judgment on Jury Verdict.47
SnoWizard further contends that the Court should not exercise its discretion under the Declaratory
Judgment Act to dismiss this action.48 It asserts that the Fifth Circuit in Sherwin-Williams Co. v.
Holmes County49 identified several factors for courts to consider in deciding whether to exercise
their discretion to dismiss and none of those factors are present in this case.50 SnoWizard argues,
inter alia, that there is no pending state action, only cancellation proceedings in the TTAB,
SnoWizard did not engage in forum shopping, and retaining the lawsuit in this Court would serve
the purposes of judicial economy.51
Finally, SnoWizard argues that the allegations Snow Ball’s Chance seeks to strike are
questions of fact which “cannot be decided on motion to strike.”52

45

Id. at pp. 6–9.

46

84 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1996).

47

Rec. Doc. 14 at pp. 8–9.

48

Id. at pp. 9–10.

49

343 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 2003).

50

Rec. Doc. 14 at pp. 9–10.

51

Id. at pp. 10–12.

52

Id. at p. 15.

9

C.

Parties’ Arguments in Supplemental Memoranda
On September 10, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to provide additional briefing, citing

relevant authority, on the following issue: whether, where this is a final judgment on an issue, such
as a trademark infringement, the case presents a justiciable issue before the Court where the
Declaratory Judgment Act claim is pending, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act and Article
III of the United States Constitution.53
In its supplemental memorandum, SnoWizard asserts that Snow Ball’s Chance has created
an actual case or controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act by filing a cancellation
proceeding with the TTAB.54 SnoWizard cites Ranir, LLC v. Dentek Oral Care, Inc.,55 arguing that
the court in that case found a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the defendant
is barred by claim preclusion from a future lawsuit to be a case or controversy under the Declaratory
Judgment Act.56 Citing City of El Paso, Texas v. El Paso Entertainment, Inc.,57 SnoWizard also
contends that the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that a district court has ancillary
jurisdiction “when, as is the case here, the parties seek to determine their respective rights under a
prior judgment.”58 Furthermore, SnoWizard contends that “a controversy exists as to whether the
defendant is a mere proxy of Southern Snow that would be bound by the previous judgments” and
that SnoWizard’s defenses of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and res judicata also raise a

53

Rec. Doc. 18.

54

Rec. Doc. 19 at p. 2.

55

No. 1:09-cv-1056, 2010 WL 3222513 (W.D. Michigan Aug. 16, 2010).

56

Rec. Doc. 19 at p. 4.

57

382 F. App’x 361 (5th Cir. 2010).

58

Rec. Doc. 19 at p. 3.

10

justiciable controversy.59 SnoWizard also asserts that the case should remain in this Court as a matter
of judicial economy, arguing that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b), “a party to a cancellation
proceeding who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may
appeal by filing a civil action in the U.S. district court.”60
In response to the Court’s request for additional briefing, Snow Ball’s Chance cites Goya
Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.,61 and asserts that the court in that case found that there was
an actual case or controversy because there was a trademark infringement claim in the TTAB
proceedings.62 Snow Ball’s Chance asserts that the instant case is distinguishable because Snow
Ball’s Chance does not bring a claim for infringement.63 Snow Ball’s chance also contends that a
registered trademark can become generic and that “earlier proceedings have no preclusive effect
against unrelated parties, presenting new theories and evidence of genericness, at a later point in
time.”64
III. Law and Analysis
A.

Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts have “limited jurisdiction and cannot entertain cases unless authorized by the

Constitution and legislation.”65 A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be

59

Id. at pp. 4–5.

60

Id. at p. 6.

61

846 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1988).

62

Rec. Doc. 20 at p. 1.

63

Id.

64

Id. at p. 2.

65

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

11

granted if the court lacks statutory authority at any time to hear and decide the dispute.66 In fact, “[i]t
is well-settled that subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time or even sua sponte by the
court.”67 The party that invokes the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden to allege with sufficient
particularity the facts creating jurisdiction and to support the allegation if challenged.68 Thus, “[t]he
burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.”69
B.

Declaratory Judgment Act
SnoWizard seeks a declaratory judgment declaring that (1) “SnoWizard, Inc. continues to

own a valid and enforceable federally registered trademark in ‘CAJUN RED HOT®’ and ‘WHITE
CHOCOLATE & CHIPS®’ as the Court and jury in the consolidated cases previously determined;”
(2) Snow Ball’s Chance is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from attacking the validity of the
trademarks; and (3) ordering the TTAB to dismiss the pending cancellation proceedings nos.
92060914 and 92060915.70 The Court previously issued a final judgment declaring the trademarks
“CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS” to be valid and enforceable.71

66

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

67

Johnston v. United States, 85 F.3d 217, 218 n.2 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Houston v. United States Postal
Serv., 823 F.2d 896, 902 (5th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 1006 (1988)); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct.
641, 648 (2012) (“When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua
sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.”).
68

Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 681 F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing St. Paul Mercury
Indemn. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 287 n.10 (1938)).
69

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing McDaniel v. United States, 899 F.
Supp. 305, 307 (E.D. Tex. 1995)).
70

Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 18.

71

S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 06-9170, Rec. Doc. 665; Rec. Doc.

709-1.

12

SnoWizard now seeks a second judgment declaring their validity and enforceability.72
The Declaratory Judgment Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2201, provides:
(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United
States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other
legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not
further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and
effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.73
In evaluating whether to decide or dismiss a declaratory judgment action, a federal district court
must determine: “(1) whether the declaratory action is justiciable; (2) whether the court has the
authority to grant declaratory relief; and (3) whether to exercise its discretion to decide or dismiss
the action.”74
1.

Whether the Declaratory Judgment Action is Justiciable

The Supreme Court has held that the Declaratory Judgment Act’s requirement of an actual
case or controversy derives not only from the statutory language itself, but also from Article III of
the Constitution, which confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual cases and controversies.75
In order to be justiciable, the controversy must be “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations
of parties having adverse legal interests,” and it must be a “real and substantial controversy
admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an
opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.”76 In order to be

72

Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 18.

73

28 U.S.C. § 2201.

74

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes Cnty., 343 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2003).

75

U.S. CONST. art. III; Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239–40 (1937).

76

Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 300 U.S. at 240–41.

13

justiciable, there must be some “useful purpose to be achieved” in deciding the issue.77
There is not a great deal of authority on the issue of justiciability in a declaratory judgment
action where the declaratory judgment sought concerns the validity of a former judgment. One case
that discusses this issue is the Fifth Circuit decision in Board of Commissioners for Buras Levee
District v. Cockrell.78 In Cockrell, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment declaring that a former
judgment was a “complete and conclusive bar” to any claim by the defendant of title to or interest
in any portion of certain lands.79 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit stated that it “greatly doubt[ed] whether
[the case presented] an ‘actual controversy,’” because “[t]here seem[ed] to be [] only a difference
of opinion as to the scope of [the] former decree . . . ” (which presumably would not be a justiciable
issue).80 However, because neither party challenged the district court’s finding “that there [was] an
actual controversy, and since relief might have been had by a bill to quiet title,” the Fifth Circuit
reviewed the merits of the appeal.81
Here, SnoWizard does not even appear to be asking the Court to decide the scope of a prior
judgment, but rather to reaffirm its own prior judgment. Therefore, it appears even clearer here than
in Cockrell, that there is no live, real case or controversy to be litigated before this Court and no
“useful purpose to be achieved” in declaring once again that “CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE

77

Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. Inc., 344 U.S. 237, 244 (1952).

78

91 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1937).

79

Id. at 413.

80

Id. at 413–14.

81

Id. at 414.

14

CHOCOLATE & CHIPS” are valid and enforceable federally registered trademarks.82 Like in
Cockrell, however, SnoWizard asks the Court to apply the judgment to a third party, which it asserts
is in privity with the parties to the prior suit. SnoWizard asks this Court to declare that Snow Ball’s
Chance is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from attacking the validity of SnoWizard’s
trademarks in “CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS.” As the Fifth Circuit
expressed, although in dicta, in Cockrell, such a request does not constitute an actual case or
controversy.83
SnoWizard argues that there is a justiciable controversy because it has a res judicata defense
in the TTAB proceedings based upon a final judgment of this Court.84 In support, SnoWizard cites
an unpublished district court case from the Western District of Michigan, Ranir, LLC v. Dentek Oral
Care.85 In Ranir, LLC, the defendant had previously filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff’s predecessor
for false advertising, unfair competition, and injurious falsehood under state law, which was
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.86 After receiving notice that the defendant intended
to file a new complaint against plaintiff for false advertising, the plaintiff filed suit seeking a
declaratory judgment that defendant was barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel from

82
Citing Starter Corporation v. Converse, 84 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1996), SnoWizard argues that there is an
actual case or controversy because there is “no uncertainty” that Snow Ball’s Chance seeks to offer “CAJUN RED
HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS” snowball flavors. Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 8. SnoWizard has failed to
show, however, how this fact creates a case or controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act for this Court to
declare the validity of its prior judgment.
83

Cockrell, 91 F.2d at 413– 14.

84

Rec. Doc. 19 at pp. 4–5.

85

Id. at p. 4.

86

No. 1:09-cv-1056, 2010 WL 3222513, at *1 (W.D. Michigan Aug. 16, 2010).

15

litigating those claims.87 The court did not address whether the case was justiciable, and found that
plaintiff had stated a plausible claim for claim preclusion.88
The Court does not find this case persuasive. The court’s discussion in Ranir, LLC was
focused on whether the plaintiff had stated claims for issue and claim preclusion. It does not appear
that the issue of justiciability was even raised. Furthermore, this case is not analogous because
SnoWizard is asking this Court, based on its prior judgment, to enjoin the proceedings before the
TTAB, where different issues are being raised.
SnoWizard additionally claims, in its complaint, that Snow Ball’s Chance’s filing of petitions
for cancellation in the TTAB created an actual case or controversy entitling SnoWizard to seek a
declaration of its rights.89 The mere filing of a claim before the TTAB does not automatically create
a case or controversy that can be adjudicated in a district court. In Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc.
v. New England Oyster House, Inc.,90 the Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s finding that there was
no actual controversy, as required by the Declaratory Judgment Act.91 In that case, the plaintiff
sought declaratory judgment, inter alia, that its trademark was valid and ordering dismissal of the
proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, in which the defendant opposed registration
of the plaintiff’s Red Lobster mark.92 Finding that the plaintiff could not rely upon the Lanham Act

87

Id. at *1–2.

88

Id. at *6.

89

Rec. Doc. 1 at pp. 8–9.

90

524 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1975).

91

Id. at 969.

92

Id.

16

for subject matter jurisdiction because there was no federal claim of infringement at issue before the
Patent and Trademark Office and because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently
confer jurisdiction, the Circuit held that there was no actual controversy before the district court.93
Similarly, simply filing a petition before the TTAB does not automatically create a case or
controversy in the case pending before this Court. Therefore, SnoWizard’s assertion that the filing
of a petition for cancellation before the TTAB alone creates a case or controversy is incorrect.
Snow Ball’s Chance argues that the TTAB proceedings do not create a case or controversy
because Snow Ball’s Chance has not brought a claim of infringement against SnoWizard in the
proceedings before the TTAB.94 Although Snow Ball’s Chance indirectly implies that SnoWizard
may want to rely upon Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Products, it asserts that it is distinguishable
from this case.95 Snow Ball’s Chance contends that the Second Circuit in Goya Foods, Inc. found
that there was a case or controversy in the district court because the defendant had accused the
plaintiff of trademark infringement before the TTAB.96
In Goya Foods, Inc., the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of a justiciable
controversy because the “the pending registration opposition proceeding did not, without more, give
rise to an ‘actual controversy’ between the parties.”97 The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend its complaint in order to add a claim that it was not infringing on defendant’s

93

Id.

94

Rec. Doc. 20.

95

Id.

96

Id.

97

Goya Foods, Inc., 846 F.2d at 850.

17

trademarks.98 The Second Circuit did not even address whether the plaintiff had presented a case or
controversy. The Second Circuit held that it “need not determine whether the original complaint
stated a claim” because it found that the district court had improperly relied upon the pendency of
the TTAB proceedings as a basis for denying the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.99 The
opinion stated that the “narrow issue presented is whether the pendency of the registration
proceeding before the TTAB was an appropriate basis for the denial of Goya’s motion to amend its
complaint seeking primarily a declaration of non-infringement.”100 The court reasoned that it was
improper for the district court to invoke primary jurisdiction based on the proceedings pending
before the TTAB.101 Therefore, the Court finds that the cited case is not relevant to a determination
of whether SnoWizard has presented a justiciable claim.
Accordingly, the Court finds that SnoWizard has not presented an actual case or controversy
in its claims for declaratory judgment and therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
SnoWizard’s declaratory judgment action.
2.

Whether the Court Has the Authority to Grant Declaratory Relief

Neither party addresses the Court’s authority to grant the declaratory relief requested.
However, because SnoWizard has failed to state a justiciable claim, the Court need not address this

98

Id. at 850–51.

99

Id. at 850.

100

Id. at 851.

101

Id. at 850–51.

18

issue.102
3.

Whether the Court Should Exercise its Discretion to Dismiss the Case

Now, assuming SnoWizard has presented a justiciable issue and the court has jurisdiction
over those claims, the Court will address the parties’ alternative arguments regarding whether the
Court should exercise its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to dismiss the case.
Snow Ball’s Chance argues that discretionary dismissal in this case is warranted in light of
the proceedings pending before the TTAB.103 On the other hand, SnoWizard contends that none of
the factors identified by the Fifth Circuit in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes County as factors to
inform the decision to decide or dismiss a declaratory judgment action support dismissal in this
case.104
The Declaratory Judgment Act “is an enabling act, which confers discretion on the courts
rather than an absolute right on a litigant.”105 “[T]he Declaratory Judgment Act has been understood
to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights
of litigants.”106 Although the district court’s discretion is broad, it is not unfettered and courts may
not dismiss requests “on the basis of whim or personal disinclination.”107 The Fifth Circuit has

102

See Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that the district court had erred
in moving beyond the first step of the inquiry because the declaratory judgment action was not justiciable).
103

Rec. Doc. 8-1 at p. 7.

104

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 10.

105

Wilton v. Seven Falls, Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287 (1995) (quoting Public Serv. Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff
Co., 34 U.S. 237 (1952).
106

Id.

107

Travelers Ins. Co., 996 F.2d at 778.

19

identified seven nonexclusive factors for district courts to consider in determining whether to decide
or dismiss a declaratory action:
(1) whether there is a pending state action in which all of the matters in controversy
may be fully litigated; (2) whether the plaintiff filed suit in anticipation of a lawsuit
filed by the defendant; (3) whether the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping in
bringing the suit; (4) whether possible inequities in allowing the declaratory plaintiff
to gain precedence in time or to change forums exist; (5) whether the federal court
is a convenient forum for the parties and witnesses; (6) whether retaining the lawsuit
would serve the purposes of judicial economy; and (7) whether the federal court is
being called on to construe a state judicial decree involving the same parties and
entered by the court before whom the parallel state suit between the same parties is
pending.108
The Court will address each of these factors in turn.
1.

Pending State Action

SnoWizard argues that the first factor weighs in favor of the Court deciding the case because
there is no pending state action, only the cancellation proceedings in the TTAB, “to which this Court
owes no deference.”109 In support, SnoWizard cites Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc.,110 a Ninth
Circuit case discussing the application of the doctrine of “primary jurisdiction” to pending TTAB
proceedings.111 In Rhoades, the defendant had filed proceedings before the TTAB opposing
plaintiff’s trademark registration applications.112 While those proceedings were pending, the plaintiff
filed a complaint in the district court, seeking declaratory judgment that its trademark applications

108

Sherwin-Williams Co., 343 F.3d at 388 (citing St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 1994)).

109

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 10.

110

504 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2007).

111

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 10.

112

504 F.3d at 1155.

20

did not infringe upon defendant’s trademarks.113 The district court dismissed the case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and stated that it was deciding not to exercise its jurisdiction on the
grounds that the complaint “should be back where it belongs [before the TTAB].”114 The Ninth
Circuit defined primary jurisdiction as follows: “[w]hen there is a basis for judicial action,
independent of agency proceedings, courts may route the threshold decision as to certain issues to
the agency charged with primary responsibility for governmental supervision or control of the
particular industry or activity involved.”115 In Rhoades, the court held that the district court had erred
in declining to exercise its jurisdiction by invoking primary jurisdiction.116 The court found that
because “Congress has not installed the [Patent and Trademark Office] as the exclusive expert in
the field,” “although the TTAB provides a forum to address trademark registration issues, the
availability of such a forum does not justify the application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
as a basis for dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal court action.”117 Considering Rhoades, the Court will not
decline to exercise jurisdiction simply because a claim was first filed before the TTAB.
In its prior judgment, the Court addressed the validity and enforceability of the trademarks
at issue here. However, the Lanham Act specifically provides that parties may assert that a registered
mark has become the generic name for a good or service, is functional, or the registration was
obtained fraudulently. A party may therefore challenge a trademark, even after it has been

113

Id. at 1156.

114

Id. at 1162.

115

Id. (citing United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003)).

116

Id. at 1162.

117

Id. at 1154, 1164.

21

adjudicated to be valid (as was the case here) by claiming a change in circumstances.
According to SnoWizard’s briefing before this Court, before the TTAB Snow Ball’s Chance
seeks the cancellation of the registration of SnoWizard’s trademarks for “CAJUN RED HOT” and
“WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS,” on the grounds that the trademarks are generic, merely
descriptive, functional, and were obtained by fraud.118 Here, SnoWizard seeks a declaratory
judgment, inter alia, affirming this Court’s prior order, and declaring that SnoWizard “continues to
own a valid and enforceable federally registered trademark in ‘CAJUN RED HOT®’ and

‘WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS®.’”119 SnoWizard is not asking this Court to decide the same
issues as those before the TTAB or to relitigate whether the trademarks are valid, however.
SnoWizard wants this Court to declare that the marks “continue” to be valid pursuant to the doctrine
of res judicata and to enjoin the TTAB from proceeding.120 Therefore, this case is distinguishable
from Rhoades where the district court invoked primary jurisdiction and declined to hear a case
simply because it was presented to the TTAB first. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
2.

Filing Suit in Anticipation of a Lawsuit Filed by the Defendant

SnoWizard asserts that the second factor, whether the plaintiff filed suit in anticipation of
a lawsuit filed by the defendant, weighs in favor of the Court deciding this case because SnoWizard
filed this case “not only in anticipation of further litigation it fully expects [Snow Ball’s Chance] to

118

Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 7

119

Id. at p. 18.

120

Id.

22

file once the TTAB were to rule on its petitions for cancellation, but also in response to [Snow Ball’s
Chance’s] actual petitions for cancellation themselves, in which [Snow Ball’s Chance] openly
expressed its intentions to resume infringement of SnoWizard’s Marks . . . .”121 This suit was filed
in response to proceedings filed before the TTAB. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor does
not weigh in favor of dismissal.
3.

Forum Shopping

Considering the third factor, SnoWizard asserts that it has not engaged in “forum shopping,”
but rather filed this suit in the same court which rendered the Judgment on Jury Verdict regarding
the trademarks at issue in the cancellation proceedings before the TTAB.122 Snow Ball’s Chance
argues that “SnoWizard is attempting to involve this District Court in exactly the circumvention,
premature adjudication, entangling, and interference [with administrative determinations and
policies] that the caselaw teaches against.”123
Concerns about forum-shopping and suits filed in anticipation of litigation arise when the
law to be applied varies based on the forum and there is evidence that the plaintiff seeks the forum
for its more favorable law.124 Here, Snow Ball’s Chance contends that SnoWizard can make the
same claims it asserts here before the TTAB, including its claim regarding the res judicata effect
of the prior judgment.125 Snow Ball’s Chance has not argued that SnoWizard filed this suit to take

121

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 12.

122

Id.

123

Rec. Doc. 8-1 at p. 4.

124

Sherwin-Williams, 343 F.3d at 399.

125

Rec. Doc. 8-1 at p. 3.

23

advantage of a difference in law or procedure in the district court. However, because SnoWizard
invokes res judicata as a basis to circumvent a claim of whether SnoWizard “continues” to hold a
valid and enforceable trademark and because its filing caused a stay of the TTAB proceedings, it
appears it does seek some advantage by filing in this Court. Therefore, the Court finds that this
factor appears to weigh in favor of dismissal.
4.

Possible Inequities

Turning to the fourth factor, SnoWizard contends that no inequities exist in bringing these
issues to light in the Court which “rendered the Judgment and Order sought to be interpreted and
enforced, and which ultimately will have the final say in the matter regardless of any ruling of the
TTAB.”126 As noted above, however, the issues sought to be decided in each forum are not the same.
The instant case has resulted in a stay of the proceedings before the TTAB, where the TTAB is being
asked to adjudicate whether the trademarks are generic, merely descriptive, functional, or obtained
by fraud. SnoWizard does not seek in this Court an “adjudication of the current validity” of the
trademarks at issue, rather it seeks a declaratory judgment that the trademarks at issue “continue”
to be valid based on the doctrine of res judicata. SnoWizard is trying to use this Court to circumvent
the TTAB proceedings. SnoWizard has not asserted why it is unable to make its argument regarding
the res judicata effect of this Court’s prior judgment before the TTAB.
Furthermore, regardless of the res judicata effect of the prior judgment, as discussed above,
15 U.S.C. § 1064 specifically provides that parties may assert that a registered mark has become the
generic name for a good or service, is functional, or the registration was obtained fraudulently. Even

126

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 12.

24

the same party may relitigate issues relating to validity of trademarks when there has been a change
in circumstances.127 Whether there has been a change in circumstances since the marks were decided
valid is not an issue before this Court. Accordingly, a declaratory judgment by this Court will not
necessarily be dispositive of the issues before the TTAB. Therefore, the Court finds that the
inequities of permitting SnoWizard to delay an actual adjudication of its trademarks, if the TTAB
were to find such an adjudication to be proper, weighs in favor of dismissal.
5.

Convenient Forum

SnoWizard asserts that each of the parties resides and conducts business in New Orleans.128
The Court acknowledges that this factor weighs in favor of the Court exercising jurisdiction in this
case.
6.

Judicial Economy

SnoWizard also contends that judicial economy will be served by the Court deciding this
case.129 SnoWizard argues that retaining the lawsuit “would serve the purposes of judicial economy
by avoiding duplicative decisions on the same issues in the TTAB and then in a subsequent de novo
appeal in this Court.”130 As discussed above, however, the issues sought to be decided in each forum
are not the same and the relief SnoWizard seeks through declaratory judgment by this Court will not
necessarily be dispositive of the issues before the TTAB. Therefore, the Court finds that judicial
economy also weighs in favor of dismissal.
127

See Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard Rock Cafe Int’l, Inc., 951 F.2d 684, 691 (5th Cir. 1992).

128

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 12.

129

Id.

130

Id. (citing PHC, Inc. v. Pioneer Healthcare, 75 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 1996)).

25

7.

Construction of a State Judicial Decree

The seventh factor, whether the Court is being called on to construe a state judicial decree
involving the same parties and entered by the court before whom the parallel state suit between the
same parties is pending, is not applicable in this case. Therefore, this factor is neutral.
8.

Conclusion

As discussed above, four factors weigh in favor of dismissal, two factors weigh in favor of
the Court exercising its jurisdiction to hear the case, and one factor is neutral. Weighing all of the
factors, the Court determines that an exercise of its discretion to dismiss the declaratory judgment
action is proper in this case.
C.

Ancillary Jurisdiction
The Court will now consider SnoWizard’s second argument that the Court can grant the

relief SnoWizard seeks through an exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction. SnoWizard asserts that the
Court has ancillary jurisdiction over its claims because a court may “interpret and enforce its own
prior Judgment on Jury Verdict rendered in the Consolidated Cases.”131 SnoWizard contends that
the effect of Snow Ball’s Chance’s petitions for cancellation in the TTAB would be to “effectively
nullify” the Judgment on Jury Verdict which declared that SnoWizard’s registrations of the marks
are valid and enforceable.132 Furthermore, SnoWizard argues that “in the event the TTAB were to
grant [Snow Ball’s Chance’s] petition and cancel SnoWizard’s registration of the Marks, and if
[Snow Ball’s Chance] then were to attempt to use the Marks on or in connection with its snowball

131

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 4.

132

Rec. Doc. 14 at p. 5.

26

flavorings . . . then arguably Snow Ball’s Chance would be in violation of this Court’s Order dated
April 24, 2014 in the Consolidated Cases enjoining Southern Snow, Snow Ingredients, ‘and those
persons in active concert or participation with them . . . ’ from using the Marks . . . .”133
Ancillary enforcement jurisdiction is a creature of necessity.134 The Supreme Court has found
that ancillary jurisdiction is generally proper in two contexts: (1) “to permit disposition by a single
court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent” and (2) “to enable
a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and
effectuate its decrees.”135 A district court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction in order “to secure or
preserve the fruits and advantages of a judgment or decree rendered” by that court.136 However, this
jurisdiction is limited to cases involving “attempts to execute, or to guarantee eventual executability
of, a federal judgment.”137 The Fifth Circuit has found ancillary jurisdiction appropriate where “the
effect of an action filed in state court would ‘effectively nullif[y]’ the judgment of a prior federal
action.”138 As the party asserting jurisdiction, SnoWizard has the burden of demonstrating that the
Court has ancillary jurisdiction over these claims.139
The Judgment on Jury Verdict states that SnoWizard “owns a valid and enforceable federally

133

Id. (citing S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 06-9170, Rec. Doc. 732).

134

Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 359 (1996) (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 380).

135

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379–80 (citations omitted).

136

Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 239 (1934).

137

Peacock, 516 U.S. at 358.

138

Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 960 F.2d 1286, 1292 (5th Cir. 1992).

139

Peacock, 516 U.S. at 354–55 (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).

27

registered trademark” in both “CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS.”140 The
Judgment on Jury Verdict also states that “judgment is rendered against plaintiffs Plum Street
Snoballs and Van’s Snowballs on their claim against defendant SnoWizard, Inc. . . . for invalidity
and unenforceability of the registered trademark WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS . . . .”141 The
cancellation proceedings filed by Snow Ball’s Chance seek to cancel these registrations on the
grounds that the names “CAJUN RED HOT” and “WHITE CHOCOLATE & CHIPS” are generic,
merely descriptive, functional, and that the registrations were obtained by fraud.142
Pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064, any person who believes that he is or will
be damaged by the registration of a mark may petition to cancel a registration of a mark “[a]t any
time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof,
for which it is registered, or is functional, or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained
fraudulently . . . .”143 Snow Ball’s Chance’s claim before the TTAB is not that a term previously
adjudicated to be generic has attained protectable status, but rather that SnoWizard’s federally
registered trademarks are generic, merely descriptive, functional, and were obtained by fraud.144
The Fifth Circuit has allowed parties to relitigate issues relating to validity of trademarks
when there has been a change in circumstances. In Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard Rock Cafe

140

S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 06-9170, Rec. Doc. 665 at pp. 7–8.

141

Id. at p. 5.

142

Rec. Docs. 1-4; 1-5.

143

15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).

144

Rec. Docs. 1-4; 1-5.

28

International, Inc.,145 there was a previous judgment where the court held that the term “pig
sandwich” was a descriptive term that had not acquired a secondary meaning.146 Sixty years after
the judgment, the original plaintiff’s successor filed suit, attempting to relitigate whether there was
a valid trademark for the term “pig sandwich.”147 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that, although
plaintiff would be barred by collateral estoppel from arguing that the term “pig sandwich” was no
longer generic because generic terms can never attain trademark protection, plaintiff was not barred
by collateral estoppel from arguing that the term “pig sandwich” had attained protectable status as
a descriptive term with a secondary meaning.148 The Fifth Circuit held that there had been a factual
change in circumstances in the sixty years since the original judgment which made collateral
estoppel inapplicable.149
In the proceedings before the TTAB, Snow Ball’s Chance seeks to cancel two trademarks,
which the jury in the previous litigation found to be valid and enforceable federally registered
trademarks, upon the grounds that they are generic, merely descriptive, functional, and obtained by
fraud. Because the Lanham Act allows for parties to petition for cancellation of trademarks due to
a change in circumstances, a judgment by the TTAB canceling the marks upon a finding that the
registered mark has become generic, is functional, or its registration was obtained fraudulently
would not “effectively nullify” this Court’s judgment.

145

951 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1992).

146

Id. at 691.

147

Id. at 688–691.

148

Id. at 691.

149

Id.

29

In support of its position that this Court should exercise its ancillary jurisdiction and hear its
claims, SnoWizard cites Royal Insurance Company of America v. Quinn-L Capital Corporation.150
In that case, there was a prior judgment in a federal declaratory action holding that Royal Insurance
had no duty to defend or indemnify Quinn-L for any claims.151 When claims based on the same
events and conduct at issue in the first action were subsequently brought in state court, Royal
Insurance first sought a declaratory judgment from the federal court stating that it had no duty to
defend or indemnify Quinn-L in the state court action.152 Royal Insurance then requested a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the state court litigation, which was granted.153 On a second appeal
after a prior remand, the Fifth Circuit held that “the district court had ancillary jurisdiction to issue
an anti-suit injunction under the ‘protect or effectuate its judgments’ exception to the AntiInjunction Act.”154 The Fifth Circuit further held, however, that the court did not have ancillary
jurisdiction over any new claims brought in the second action as the jurisdiction “extends no further
than the scope of the first judgment.”155
The Court finds this case distinguishable from Royal Insurance with respect to the portion
of the opinion that SnoWizard states is applicable here. As discussed above, if Snow Ball’s Chance
can show that there has been a change in circumstances rendering the trademarks generic or

150

960 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1992).

151

Id. at 1289–91.

152

Id. The issue of justiciability under the Declaratory Judgment Act was not raised.

153

Id.

154

Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 881 (5th Cir. 1993).

155

Id. at 882.

30

functional, or that the trademarks were obtained by fraud, Snow Ball’s Chance could relitigate these
issues before the TTAB. These claims would be new claims extending beyond the scope of the first
judgment.
SnoWizard also cites to City of El Paso, Texas v. El Paso Entertainment, Inc., arguing that,
in that case, the court held that it could exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a second declaratory
judgment action in order to determine the rights of the parties pursuant to a prior federal court
order.156 In El Paso Entertainment, Inc., the City of El Paso, Texas (“the City”) and two businesses
had previously entered into an agreed judgment in which the City agreed that it would not enforce
certain ordinances against the businesses as long as they were in operation at their current locations
by their current owners and operators.157 Twelve years later, the City filed a declaratory judgment
action asking the court to declare whether the judgment was still in effect, asserting that the original
owner’s sale of his stock constituted a change in owner and operators.158 The Fifth Circuit held that
the court had ancilliary jurisdiction over the case, noting that “a federal court has ancillary
jurisdiction to interpret a prior federal court order where the effect of such an interpretation would,
inter alia, nullify or prevent future enforcement of the original federal judgment.”159 SnoWizard
argues that, unlike in El Paso Entertainment, Inc., Snow Ball’s Chance has “further escalated the
controversy by filing an adversarial, offensive proceeding with the TTAB, alleging the identical

156

Rec. Doc. 19 at p. 3.

157

382 F. App’x at 363.

158

Id.

159

Id. at 364 (citing Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 357 (1996).

31

facts, arguments, and legal theories that were rejected by the jury in the Consolidated Cases.”160
The Court finds El Paso Entertainment, Inc. distinguishable from this case. As discussed
above, the cancellation of the trademarks before the TTAB on the grounds that there was a change
in circumstances rendering the trademarks generic or functional, or that the trademarks were
obtained by fraud would not “effectively nullify” this Court’s judgment because the issues currently
brought before the TTAB are permissible even where there exists a prior judgment.
Therefore, SnoWizard has not met its burden of establishing that the Court in this case has
ancillary jurisdiction over its claims by a showing that the proceedings before the TTAB would
“effectively nullify” this Court’s prior judgments. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise ancillary
jurisdiction over SnoWizard’s claims.
IV. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes first that SnoWizard has failed to present a
justiciable case under the Declaratory Judgment Act and therefore the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Second, and in the alternative, should it later be determined a justiciable issue was
presented, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to decide the case pursuant to the Declaratory
Judgment Act. Third, the Court will not exercise ancillary jurisdiction over SnoWizard’s claims for
declaratory judgment. Because the Court grants Snow Ball’s Chance’s motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court need not reach Snow Ball’s Chance’s motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or its motion to strike allegations under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f).

160

Rec. Doc. 19 at p. 3.

32

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Snow Ball’s Chance’s “Motion to Dismiss and Strike
Under Rule 12”161 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED AS MOOT IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to the extent that it moves to
dismiss SnoWizard’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent that
it seeks to strike allegations in the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

24th
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ____ day of September, 2015.

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

161

Rec. Doc. 8.

33