The Honor able P. Kevin Castel, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. 06-3532-c v Fe dera l Trea sury

Enterpr ise v. Spirits I nternational N.V. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

## AMENDED SUMMARY ORD ER

Ru lings by summary orde r d o n ot h ave prece den tial eff ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r filed on or after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal R ule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 an d t h is c ou rt ’s L oc alR u le 3 2. 1. 1. W h en c it in g a su mma ryo rd erin a d oc u me n t file d with t h is cour t, apa rty mus t cite either the Federal A ppe ndixor an electron ic da taba se (w ith th e n otation “summary orde r”). A partycitinga summary orde r must serve a co py of it on anypa rty n ot re p re se n te d b y co u n se l. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 24 day

of Nove mber, two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: J OSÉ A. CABRANE S,

B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER,

Circuit Judges , P

. KE V INC A S T E L, * District Judge. 1 2 3 4 F ED ER A L T R EA S UR Y E NT ER PRI S E S OJ UZ P L OD OI MP OR T 06-3532- CV 5 AND Z AKRYTOE A KTS I ONERNOE O B S C HE S TVO “L IV IZ ”, 6 7 Plain tif

fs- Ap pe lla nts , 8 9 – v. – 10 11 S PIRI T S I

N T ER N A T I O N A L N.V., SPI S PIRI T S L I MI TED , SPI G ROUP SA, Y U R I S HEF L ER , A L EXEY 12 O LIY N IK , A L L I ED D OMEC Q I N T ER N A T I O N A L H O LD I N G S B.V

. AND A L L I ED D OMEC Q S PIRT S & 13 W I NE USA, I NC ., 14 15 Defendants-A ppellees

.2 1 2 3 4 FOR APPEL LANT: K ATHL EE N M. S UL L I VAN , (D A N I EL H. B ROM BERG , on the 5 brief ), Qu inn Em anu e l Urq

uh art & Sul liv an, L L P, 6 Redwood Shores, California (J OHN B. Q UI NN , D AVI D W. 7 Q UI NT O , Quinn Emanuel Ur quhart & Sulli van, L L P, L os 8 Ang eles, California , J US TI N H UGH ES , Cardozo School of 9 L aw, Ne w York, N ew Yor k, J EF F R EY A. C O N CI A T O RI , 10 J ONATHAN O B L AK , W I L L I AM B. A DA MS , New Y ork, Ne w 11 York, on the brief )

. 12 13 FOR APP EL L EE S: E UGENE D. G UL L AND (O SCAR M. G AR I B AL DI , N EIL K. 14 R OMAN , E MI L Y J OHNS ON H EN N , on the brief ), Covington & 15 Bur ling L L P, New Yor k, District of Columbia, (B RADL EY 1 6 J. N A SH , Covington & Bur ling L L P, New Yor k, New Y ork, 17 on the brief ) for Defendants-Appe llees Spirits International 18 N.V ., SP I S pir its Lim ite d, SP

I Gro up SA , Yuri S

he fle r, 19 Alexe y Oliynik. 20 21 D AVI D H. B ERNS TEI N (M I CH A EL S CHAPER , on the brief ) 22 Debe voise & Plimpton L L P, New Yor k, New Y ork for 23 Defendants-A ppellees Allied Dom ecq . 24 25 26 27 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 28 New Y ork (Da

niels, J. ). 29 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON, I T I S HEREBY ORDERED, A DJ UDGED AND 30 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FIRMED I

N PART and VACATED 31 AND REMAND ED I N PART. 32 Plaintiff-Appellant F eder al Tre asury Enterpr ise Sojuz plodoimport (“FT E”) a ppeals fr om 33 a jud g me nt o f t

he Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Co ur t f or the Southe rn

Di stric t of

Ne w Y or k ( Da nie ls, 34 J. ) arising fr om liti g ation over ownership of the famous STOL I CHNAYA vodka trade marks. 35 FTE, a

n entity cre ated by

the Russian g overnme nt and purporte dly g rante d rights by

the 36 g overnme nt to manag e the tra demar ks, sued two groups of de fenda nts: (1) Spirits I nternational3 1 N.V., SPISpirits L imited, SP IGroup SA, Yuri Shef ler, a nd Alexey

Oliy nik (collec tively , the 2 “SPIdefe ndants”), who also claim to be the la wful owne rs of the tra demar ks, and (2) Allied 3 D o m e c qIn t e r

n at i o n a l H o l d i n g s B

. V

. an d A l l i e d D o m e c qS p i rt s & W i n e U S A , In c . ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, 4 “Allied Domec q”), to whom SPIhas assigned its purported ownership rights. FTE’s c omplaint 5 asser

ted a va riety of L anham Ac t and re lated common-la w claims. See15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. 6 Th e pr inc ipa l di sp ute be low wa s e sse nti a lly

wh e the r A lli e d D ome c q’ s c la ime d r ights in 7 the marks ha d become “incontesta ble” unde r the L anham Ac t. See15 U.S.C. § 1065(1)-(4) . The 8 dis tr ic t c ourt

c on c lud e d th at th e mark s h a d b e c ome inc onte sta ble , a nd that th e re fo re F TE c ou ld 9 not challeng e the va lidity of their a ssignment to Allied Domec q. We addre ss this i ssue in a 10 separ ate opinion filed c ontemporane ously with this sum mary

order , in which we va cate the 11 judgme nt of the district court a nd hold that FTE may

challeng e Allied Domec q’s claim of 12 owner ship of the marks in a f eder al ac tion. That opinion includes a detailed a ccount of the 13 complicated f

actua l and proc edura l background of this litigation. 14 F TE ha s a lso a pp e a le d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of its c omm on -l aw f

ra ud and un jus t 15 e nr ic hme nt c la ims . F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of the se 16 claims. We also addre ss a linge ringjoinder issue. 17 The district cour t dismi ssed FT E’s fr aud cla im ag ainst the SPIentities and Allied 18 Domecq, a

nd its claim for aidingand abe tting fr aud ag ainst the latter, on the ground that F TE had 19 failed to plea d that it had relied on a false statement of the de fenda nts. I t pled instead that 20 PepsiCo, a third party , had re lied on SPI ’s fa lse statements. The district cour t, relying on 21 Ce me nt &

Con c re teW

or k e rs v . Lo llo , 148 F.3d 194, 196 ( 2d Cir. 1998), conc luded that New 22 York lawdid not permit a fra ud action base d on misrepre sentations to a third party . Since the4 1 district court’s de cision, we he ld in City of New Y ork v. Sm okes- Spirits.com, Inc. , 541 F.3d 425 2 (2d Cir. 2008), that “a lleg ations of third-par ty relianc e . . . ar e insuffic ient to make out a c ommon 3 law fr aud cla im under Ne w York la w.” Id. at 454. Lol lo and Sm ok es- Sp iri ts make c lear

that 4 fra ud claims may

not be pre mised on false state ments on which a third pa rty relied. 5 Con se qu e ntl y , w e a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of F TE ’s fr a

ud c la ims

. 6 F TE a lso c onte sts the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of its c la im o f u

nju st e nr ic hme nt a g a ins t 7 the SPIentities. The district cour t properly identified the thre e ele ments of an unjust enric hment 8 claim under

New Y ork law: “ (1) . . . the de fenda nt benef itted; (2) at the plaintiff’ s expense; and 9 (3 ) .

. . e qu ity

and g oo d c on sc ie nc e re qu ir e re sti tut ion .” Th e c ourt the n d ism iss e d th is c la im 10 beca

use, it rea soned, any

benef it the SP Ientities rec eived f rom the cour se of c onduct FT E 11 complained of

was not at F TE’s expense. This wa s so, the district court stated, be cause FTE w as 12 not cre ated by

the Russian g overnme nt until 2000; did not rece ive rights to any of the Russian 13 STOL I CHNAYA tra demar ks until 2002; and still has not rece ived the rights to the Russi an 14 Fe deration’s share of the profits of the America n STOL I CHNAYA tra demar ks. The district 15 court a lso believed that F TE’s plea ding did not show that e quity and g ood conscie nce r equire d 16 restitution. 17 We a g re e wi th t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ho ldi ng , a lbe it f or a dif fe re nt r e a so n. Un

jus t 18 enric hment is an equitable c laim that is unavailable whe re a n adequate re medy

at law e x ists. See 19 Lucente v . Int’l Bus. Mac h. Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 262 ( 2d Cir. 2002). FTE argues that leg al 20 reme dies are inadequate bec ause it see ks the retur n of the Ame rica

n STOL I CHNAYA 2 1 tr a d e m ar

k s , b utth e c o mp l a i n t

r e v e a l s th ati ts e e k s o n l y monetary relief on its unjustenric hment 22 claim. Moreove r, proc eedingunder a theory of unjust enrichme nt would allow plaintiff to evade5 1 the statute of limitations applicable to a tortious interf ere nce w ith contrac t claim. See Norris v. 2 Grove

snor Mktg. , 803 F.2d 1281, 1287 ( 2d Cir. 1986) (“An equitable c laim cannot proc eed 3 wher e the plaintiff ha s had and le t pass an ade quate a lternative r emedy at law.” (collec ting 4 c a se s) ); see also Buller v. G iorno , 2 8 A .D .3 d 2 58 , 2 59 (N .Y . 1 st D e p’ t 20 06 ); Ne w Y or k Ci vil 5 Practice L aws a

nd Rules § 214(4) (Mc Kinney 2003). Thus, we aff

irm the district court’s 6 dismiss al of the unjust enr ichment claim. 7 Finally , as we have va cate d the district court’s de cision as to sever al of F TE’s cla ims and 8 re mand e d f

or fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s, we ob se rv e that th e c omp la int , a nd the e xhibi ts atta c he d to it, 9 ra ise the qu e sti on

of wh e the r t he re are a bs e nt, re qu ir e d p art ie s, purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il 10 Procedur e 19, and, if so, whether

joinder of those pa

rties is fea sible. We requeste d supplemental 11 br ie fi ngon

thi s is su e , n oti ngthat “ [b]e c a us e Rul e 19 pr ote c ts the ri g hts of an a bs e nte e pa

rt y , b oth 12 trial courts a

nd appellate courts may

consider this issue su a s

po nteeven if

it is notraised by

the 13 parties to the a ction.” MasterCard Int’l v. Visa Int’l Se rv. Ass’n , 471 F.3d 377, 382- 83 (2d Cir. 14 2006). The SPIdefe ndants also moved the district cour t to dism iss FTE’s c omplaint on the 15 g ro un ds that F GU P or the Rus sia

n F e de ratio n is a

re qu ir e d p art

y , a s th e tr

ue owne r o f a

ny ri g hts 16 that FTE c laims to the America n STOL I CHNAYA tra demar ks, althoug h they

have not r enew ed 17 those arguments on appea l. 18 Af

te r c on sid e ri ngthe pa

rt ie s’ su pp le me nta l brie fi ngon

the iss ue , w e are un a

ble sti ll t o 19 dis c e rn

on the pr e se nt r e c or d whe the r F GU P is a re qu ir e d p art

y . F TE a sse rt s th at F GU P’ s c la ims 20 to t

he Am e ri c an ST OL I CHNAYAmark s ( wh ic h it a lle g e dly owne d a s th e le g a l su c c e sso r t o 21 VV O- SPI ) w e re a ssi g ne d to F TE , th us re nd e ri ngF GU P di sinte re ste d to the outc ome of thi s 22 dispute. Howeve r, the doc ument to which FT E cites as e vidence of this transfe r – a 2002 de cre e6 1 of the Russian g overnme nt – appea rs to ref er only to the Russian STOL I CHNAYA tra demar k, 2 not the American mark. Eve n acc ordingto FTE’ s own complaint, the Russian g overnme nt 3 issued this order after Russian courts deter

mined that the Russian tradema rks had be en 4 misappropriate d and we re la wfully the prope rty

of the state, f

urther sug g estingthat the dec ree 5 was a ddressingthe newly returne d Russian trademar ks, not the still -missing Ame rica n ones. The 6 only

clea r re fer ence to non-Russian tradema rks comes later, in a January 2005 decr ee where in the 7 Rus sia

n g ov e rnme nt g ive s F TE the ri g ht t o “ repr e se nt t he int e re sts of

the Rus sia

n F e de ra tio n in 8 the cour

ts on matters of re cover

y and prote ction of the rights of the Russian Fe deration to the 9 trade marks for

alcoholic pr oducts abroa d.” This languag e, on its fac e, does not a ppear to be an 10 obvious transfer

of owne rship from F GUP to FTE, a nd, in any case , purports to expire on 11 J anuar

y 1, 2006. Thus, we f

ind that the rec ord is insufficient for us to determine whe ther F GUP 12 or

the Rus sia

n F e de ra tio n a re ne c e ssa

ry pa rt ie s. On re mand , w e le ave it t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt to 13 de te rm ine , in

the fi rs t in sta

nc e , whe the r t

he re qu ir e d p art ie s a

re be fo re it. 14 CO NC LU SION 15 The judgment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED with respec t to FTE’s f raud a nd 16 unjust enrichment cla ims (claims 2, 3, and 9). In the sepa rate ly filed compa

nion opinion, we 17 VACATE the judgment of the district cour t with respec t to claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, and 15, a nd 18 REM AN D f

or fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s. We a lso re mand the joi nd e r i ssu e c on sid e re d in thi s 19 summary

order

. 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 22 23