Artful Color, Inc. v. Hale (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-02-0216, 6 pp.) (Terrence W. Boyle, J.) 5:12-cv-00576; E.D.N.C.
Holding: Though a judgment in this matter might clarify legal relations and provide relief from uncertainty, because the issue of the court’s personal jurisdiction over defendant is unclear and dismissal of this action would not deprive plaintiff of a forum as plaintiff has raised no exclusively federal claims, the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action. The court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.
The California defendant has sent the N.C. plaintiff a cease and desist letter and taken additional steps to prevent plaintiff’s allegedly infringing behavior, including contacting plaintiff’s internet service providers and Facebook; thus, this court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter, and an actual controversy exists. Nevertheless, plaintiff does not raise a federal action in its suit; plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment related to common law trademark rights in addition to several state law causes of action. Furthermore, this court’s personal jurisdiction over defendant is questionable.