In The Gowanus Dredgers v. Baard, 11 CV 5985 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2013), the Gowanus Dredgers (the “Dredgers”), a charitable organization established “to raise awareness of environmental issues affecting the Gowanus waterfront in Brooklyn and the broader New York/New Jersey harbor area,” sued Erik Baard, the founder of a group called the Long Island City Community Boathouse (“Boathouse”) that later became affiliated with the Dredgers. After Baard resigned from the leadership of both the Dredgers and the Boathouse, he allegedly continued to use the logo and name of the Boathouse on his Facebook page. As a result, the Dredgers sued Baard for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition, and New York’s unfair competition laws.
In deciding the Dredgers’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Pamela Chen addressed whether they had standing to assert infringement claims owned by the Boathouse, which used (and therefore owned) the trademark at issue. The Dredgers argued that they owned the Boathouse’s trademark because: (1) the Boathouse was “essentially a subsidiary” of the Dredgers; (2) the Boathouse was an “activity committee” of the Dredgers governed by the Dredgers’ by-laws; (3) the Dredgers provided insurance to the Boathouse; and (4) the Boathouse operated as a “fiscal conduit” for fundraising for the Dredgers. Baard countered by arguing that the Boathouse was a separate entity from the Dredgers, therefore they did not have standing to assert the infringement claims at issue.
Judge Chen found that issues of fact concerning the Dredgers’ ownership of the Boathouse precluded summary judgment. She was not persuaded that the purchase of insurance coverage or the alleged “fiscal conduit” relationship constituted evidence of ownership. What she found “most telling” was the absence of a contract, board minutes, correspondence, or an authorization evidencing the Dredgers’ ownership of the Boathouse. After oral argument she gave the Dredgers the opportunity to submit an affidavit supplementing their claim of ownership, and the Dredgers did so. However, the affidavit did not definitively resolve the ownership question and left issues of fact.