Opinion ID: 779795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the District Court Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Text: 15 On appeal, as below, Mattel seeks to make subject matter jurisdiction an issue and argues that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 As noted above, the district court did not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, despite the court's inadvertent use of that term at the preliminary conference and in its written orders. Nor did captainbarbie.com ever argue, in substance, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this federal-question action. Subject matter jurisdiction is clearly satisfied here because Mattel's claims are founded upon a federal statute that confers subject matter jurisdiction on the district and appellate courts. See 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) (The district ... courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction and the courts of appeal of the United States ... shall have appellate jurisdiction, of all actions arising under [the federal trademark statute, which includes the ACPA], without regard to the amount in controversy or to diversity or lack of diversity of the citizenship of the parties.); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), § 1338(a) (The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to ... trademarks.); Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.Net, 302 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir.2002) ([Plaintiff trademark owner's] assertion of substantive claims under federal statutes, the ACPA and the trademark-dilution statute, invokes a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction....). 17