Ahmed v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 32

Judge Rya W. Zobel: ORDER entered granting 20 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (DiBlasi, Lily)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-13130-RWZ

NAEEM AHMED
v.
APPLE INC.

ORDER
June 12, 2014

ZOBEL, D.J.
Plaintiff Mr. Naeem Ahmed, domiciled in Karachi, Pakistan, filed this action “to
protect its (sic) established and licensed trademark JANG and GEO ... in the United
States and United Kingdom ... against very serious nature of infringements regarding
the same trademarks ...” (Complaint, ¶ 1). The named defendants are Apple Inc.
(“Apple”), and two John Does. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28
U.S.C. §1332. Given the vague and contradictory allegations of the complaint, Apple
moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement. The court denied the former without
prejudice but allowed the latter, particularly, with respect to plaintiff’s standing as
reflected by his rights to each mark in issue and the basis for the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, including specifically the citizenship of the John Doe defendants.
In his response plaintiff asserts that he has been using both marks since 1998 in
connection with news publication, broadcasting, entertainment and the like, that he is

“the bona fide and established owner of the marks,” and that, on November 20, 2013,
he applied in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for registration of the JANG mark
and in the Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom for registration of the GEO
mark (Docket # 19). Concerning the citizenship of the John Doe defendants, plaintiff
acknowledges that he and defendants must be citizens of different states and assures
the court that he easily meets this requirement as “plaintiff is a resident of
Massachusetts and the Defendant No. 1 [Apple] is from California and Defendant No. 2
and 3 [the John Doe defendants] are presumably from Delaware, therefore there is
complete diversity supporting subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. I note that in the
complaint plaintiff describes himself as domiciled in Karachi, Pakistan, and that his
address in all court documents is in Karachi. Both applications for registration of the
trademarks, filed not quite three weeks before the complaint, list his address as in
Seattle, Washington. Apple has renewed its motion to dismiss for failure to properly
respond to the court’s order, as well as the continued inadequacy of the complaint
(Docket # 20). It relies on the entire record which includes a number of public
documents that contradict particularly plaintiff’s assertion of ownership and use of the
marks in dispute. The motion is allowed.
As to jurisdiction, plaintiff’s response to the order for a more definite statement
provides no facts to support the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. In fact, the issue is
more muddled now than it was before that response.
Whatever leeway a court may appropriately grant to pro se litigants is
insufficient to sustain a complaint that continues to rely on facts shown by public
2

documents to be missing or wrong.1 That record particularly contradicts plaintiff’s
assertions of ownership and use of the marks, and plaintiff has failed to provide any
facts in rebuttal.
In another of plaintiff’s actions in this court, Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., et al., No. 1410025-RGS, Judge Stearns has set forth in detail the history and use of the same
trademarks asserted in this lawsuit, which I adopt. That history, which is also set out in
the supporting papers in this case, makes clear that, contrary to plaintiff’s wholly
unsupported assertions, plaintiff has no rights in the asserted trademarks and thus no
right to claim infringement by defendant.
The motion to dismiss (Docket # 20) is ALLOWED. Judgment may be entered
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

/s/Rya W. Zobel
RYA W. ZOBEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

June 12, 2014
DATE

1

As counsel have pointed out, plaintiff is not entirely without experience litigating. He has filed
seven actions in this court, albeit all asserting similar claims. (Ahmed v Hosting.com, No. 13-13117WGY (filed Dec. 9, 2013); Ahmed v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-13130-RWZ (filed Dec. 10, 2013); Ahmed v.
British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., No. 13-12140-NMG (filed Dec. 11, 2013); Ahmed v. Dish Network, No. 1410024-GAO (filed Jan. 7, 2014); Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., No. 14-10025-RGS (filed Jan. 7, 2014); Ahmed
v. Facebook, Inc., No. 14-10026-WGY (filed Jan. 7, 2014).)

3