Opinion ID: 1036437
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transfer of Ownership Rights in the Marks

Text: Even if we were to treat the Act’s formal writing requirement as potentially satisfied by aspects of the Charter and the 2002 and 2005 decrees, those documents leave the Russian Federation with not only ownership, but simply too great an operational interest in the Marks for us to consider the Federation as having assigned the Marks to FTE for purposes of the Act. According to one acknowledged authority in the field, an assignment “is an outright sale of all rights in that mark.” 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 18:1 (4th ed. 24 2012) (emphasis added). Professor McCarthy further advises that an “assignment” is “by definition . . . a legal document that transfers title to the mark.” Id. § 18:7; see also id. § 18:15 (“After an assignment, the assignor has divested itself of its trademark rights.”). Other commentators have echoed this view. See, e.g., Siegrun D. Kane, Kane on Trademark Law § 21:1 (2011 ed.) (“A trademark assignment is a transfer of ownership. The trademark owner (assignor) gives up all rights to the mark. Those rights are acquired by the assignee, who stands in the shoes of the assignor.”); Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 34 (1995) (“The owner of a trademark, trade name, collective mark, or certification mark may transfer ownership of the designation to another through an assignment.”).12 Regulations promulgated by the USPTO similarly suggest its expectation that a trademark assignment will effect a transfer of ownership. Those concerning the issuance of a “[n]ew certificate on change of ownership” require that “[t]he assignment or other document changing title must be recorded in the [USPTO].” 37 C.F.R. § 2.171(a) (emphasis added). 12 In ICEE Distributors, Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 325 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2003), the Fifth Circuit, citing to both the McCarthy and the Kane treatises, similarly described the “assignment” of a mark as the “assignee step[ping] into the shoes of the assignor . . . . [and thereby] acquir[ing] . . . all the rights and priorities of the assignor.” Id. at 593 (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). Other circuits have endorsed the approach, also describing an assignee as “step[ping] into the shoes of the assignor.” Carnival Brand Seafood Co. v. Carnival Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 1999); Premier Dental Prods. Co. v. Darby Dental Supply Co., 794 F.2d 850, 853 (3d Cir. 1986). 25 Finally, in the more specific context of standing under Section 32(1), Professor McCarthy concludes that both as a matter of statutory interpretation and under general principles of trademark law, “only the owner of the trademark is entitled to sue for its infringement.” 6 McCarthy § 32.3. And district courts in this Circuit have long held – and persuasively reasoned – that a party is not an “assign” for standing purposes under the Lanham Act unless that party owns the mark at issue.13 Our own case law on the subject is sparse, but we appear to have accepted that a transfer of an ownership interest in a mark is a predicate to standing for any putative “assign.” In DEP Corp. v. Interstate Cigar Co., 622 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1980), for example, we considered whether the exclusive distributor of soap bearing a registered trademark could sue for infringement. To determine whether the plaintiff had functionally been assigned the mark at issue, we looked to the language of the distribution agreement. That 13 See Prince of Peace Enters., Inc. v. Top Quality Food Market, LLC, 760 F. Supp. 2d 384, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[L]icenses for particular uses, or other documents not purporting to transfer ownership in the mark, are not assignments as the alleged assignor has not parted with all rights.”); Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co. v. Tunnel Trading, No. 98 Civ. 5408, 2001 WL 1456577, at  (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2001) (“Where a licensing agreement does not grant the licensee a property interest in the mark or otherwise assign to the licensee the registrant-licensor’s ownership rights, the licensee, even if exclusive, cannot enforce the mark under § 1114.”); Nordco A.S. v. Ledes, No. 95 Civ. 7753, 1997 WL 570546, at  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 1997) (finding no valid assignment of trademark rights on the ground that “there is no document conveying title or ownership of the trademark to [the plaintiff]”); Silverstar Enters., Inc. v. Aday, 537 F. Supp. 236, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (“[A]n assignment of a trademark is a transfer of the entire interest.”). 26 document provided that the plaintiff “shall not during the continuance of this arrangement or thereafter have or claim any right whatsoever whether of user or otherwise to or in any such trade marks, trade names or brands used in connection with [p]roducts.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We found this express language dispositive, even if the plaintiff as an exclusive distributor “has the greatest interest in bringing an infringement action.” Id. at 624. The agreement “deni[ed] the [plaintiff] any property interest in the trademark,” id. at 623, and we accordingly concluded that the plaintiff could not bring a claim for infringement under Section 32(1). FTE argues that these cases and authorities misinterpret the Act insofar as they require that an “assign” obtain ownership of or title to a mark. According to FTE, Congress could have limited standing under Section 32(1) to trademark owners, as it did elsewhere in the Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A) (providing standing in cyberpiracy cases only to the “owner” of the mark). Instead, Congress chose to enlarge standing for violations of Section 32(1) to include a registrant’s “legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns.” FTE maintains that this list of proper plaintiffs includes entities that do not actually own the trademarks at issue, and so ownership cannot be a sine qua non of statutory standing. Further, FTE notes that Professor McCarthy – who elsewhere asserts that an assignment 27 amounts to “an outright sale of all rights in that mark” – also observes that an “assignment is valid even though it may reserve certain rights of use of the mark in the assignor.” 3 McCarthy § 18:8. Here, however, we need not precisely delineate the bundle of rights that a trademark assignment must extend to a purported assignee to support the latter’s standing to bring a Section 32(1) suit. It is enough to say that in this case, in consideration of all of the relevant authorities, too many rights remain with the Russian Federation for it to be deemed to have “assigned” the Marks to FTE. Thus, the Charter expressly states that “[t]he property of the enterprise shall be in federal [i.e., Russian Federation] ownership,” and that the property shall be transferred to FTE only “for operative administration in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation.” Charter ¶¶ 13, 14, J.A. 417. FTE argues that, under Russian law, providing an assignment for “operative administration” is tantamount to an assignment under the Lanham Act. For example, FTE advises that article 113 of the Russian Civil Code provides that the property of a “unitary enterprise” like FTE shall “belong to that enterprise by right of economic jurisdiction or operative management.” Special Appendix (“SPA”) 73 (emphasis added). Further, parties that possess property by right of “operative administration” are 28 legally authorized under Russian Civil Code article 305, we are told, to defend their possessory rights against the actual owner of the property. SPA 79. Russian law, however, appears to be much more equivocal than FTE suggests. Defendants point to provisions of the Russian Civil Code that suggest strongly that “state unitary enterprises” are “not endowed with the right of ownership.” Russian Civil Code art. 113(1), SPA 73. Further, Russian law allows institutions within which “property has been consolidated by right of operative management” to “possess, use, and dispose of this property within the limits established by a law in accordance with the purposes of its activity, the assignments of the owner of this property, and the designation of this property.” Id. art. 296(1), SPA 76 (emphasis added). Without purporting to tender a definitive reading of Russian law, we can nonetheless observe that the Civil Code is consistent with the limitations placed on FTE’s rights to the Marks by the Charter and decrees, and does not so enhance FTE’s operational rights as to render it an assign under United States trademark law. The Charter expressly prohibits FTE from alienating or otherwise disposing of any property assigned to it by right of operative administration, and allows the Russian Federation to impound property transferred to FTE and to “wind-up” FTE. Similarly, the July 2002 decree provides that FTE has the right “to use and dispose (without the right 29 to assign)” the Marks, and states that any such use shall occur only “in accordance with the procedure established by” agencies of the Russian Federation. J.A. 423. Not only do Russian law and the relevant decrees direct that the Russian Federation retain formal title to the Marks, then, but they expressly reserve to the Russian Federation certain rights that are generally inherent in the concept of ownership. Thus, FTE has no right to assign the Marks absent permission from the Russian Federation, and nothing that we have been directed to in the governing documents suggests that FTE has been conveyed a general right to exclude others from use of the Marks. See 1 McCarthy § 2:14 (“A Trademark is a Right to Exclude”). FTE has identified no constraint on the Russian Federation’s authority to use the Marks itself if, for example, the Federation determines in its sole discretion that the Marks are not being used for their “proper purpose.” The Russian Federation also appears free to withdraw FTE’s rights to use the Marks, and to grant others similar rights. Although in the future we may find a trademark assignment effective to confer standing where the assignment reserves certain rights in the assignor, FTE has not cited any persuasive authority within or outside our Circuit holding that a valid assignment of a trademark right can occur when the putative assignor retains the right to rescind the trademark, to 30 grant a license for its use to others, or to exclude others from using the mark. We decline to create such a rule here. 3. FTE’s Statutory Standing as an Exclusive Licensee FTE argues further that even if the Russian Federation has not actually “assigned” the Marks, FTE’s exclusive right to use the Marks in the United States and abroad – in effect, an exclusive license – is sufficient to support FTE’s statutory standing to sue under Section 32(1). Some district court opinions appear to offer support for this argument. See, e.g., Telebrands Corp. v. Del Labs., Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 283, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that where an exclusive licensee has “broad rights to sell” a product with a registered trademark “royalty free, [and] for a potentially unlimited period” and does “not set forth any restrictions on [the licensee’s] ability to enforce the trademarks,” the licensee has standing to sue for infringement under Section 32(1)); Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 339 F. Supp. 2d 944, 959-61 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (concluding that an exclusive license that also extends “the right to pursue actions for infringement of the mark” is sufficient to establish standing to sue for infringement). But Congress could easily have included “licensee” or “exclusive licensee” among the terms in 15 U.S.C. § 1127 that define a “registrant.” It chose instead to limit standing to parties having a more specific set of 31 interests in the registered mark. A plaintiff therefore must show that its “license” amounts, in fact, to an assignment to establish entitlement to sue under Section 32(1). See 3 McCarthy § 18:5 (“Even though a contract states that it is a ‘license,’ a court will not be governed by form, and the contract will be upheld as an assignment of trademark rights if that is its actual legal effect.”); 3-11 Gilson on Trademarks § 11.02(1)(b) (“Gilson”) (same). For the reasons discussed above with respect to the putative assignment, see Part II.A.1 & 2, plaintiffs’ allegations fall short here. As defined by United States law, FTE is not, in fact, the “assign” of the Marks, and therefore may not sue under Section 32(1) on that basis. In addition, we observe that plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege facts plausibly showing that FTE was granted an exclusive license to use or enforce the Marks, and none of the relevant documents suggest the Russian Federation’s intent to grant such an exclusive license. The complaint alleges that FTE is “the only entity with the right to use and dispose of the Marks.” Am. Compl. ¶ 136, J.A. 284. But that FTE was the only licensee when it filed the complaint does not establish that it held an exclusive license, especially in light of the absence of any suggestion of exclusivity in either the Charter or the July 2002 decree. Moreover, the complaint does not appear to suggest that FTE could exclude the Russian Federation from using the Marks, since 32 FTE acknowledges that its rights are limited by the Russian Federation’s “ultimate ownership.” Id. 4. Special Considerations Concerning Foreign Government Trademark Holders Plaintiffs also contend that we should ignore these legal restrictions on FTE’s rights to sue with regard to the Marks and instead look generally to what we discern to be the policies underlying statutory limitations on seeking damages for trademark infringement. In particular, plaintiffs argue that policy interests in avoiding a multiplicity of suits are not implicated in this case because the Russian Federation has agreed by letter submitted to the District Court to be bound by this litigation.14 They urge further that comity considerations compel our court to afford the Russian Federation flexibility in determining how to protect its trademark rights and therefore to recognize FTE as an assign. 14 In May 2011, presumably at FTE’s request, the Deputy Head of the Federal Service for the Regulation of the Alcohol Market of the Russian Federation sent a brief letter to the District Court declaring that the Russian Federation had empowered FTE to bring this litigation and that “any final judgment on the merits of the claims for restoration of the trademark Stolichnaya brought by FTE . . . will be for the Russian Federation the final resolution of the court dispute with the defendants arising from the subject and grounds set out by FTE . . . in the relevant complaint (i.e., will have for the Russian Federation the same consequences as if the Russian Federation were a party to the abovementioned proceedings).” Letter dated May 26, 2011 of V.V. Spirin to District Court, J.A. 458-59. 33 We discuss some of these concerns in greater detail below, in the context of the claim that FTE is the “legal representative” of the Russian Federation. We agree that, in certain contexts, such policy considerations, like the interest in avoiding a multiplicity of suits, may help to guide the analysis of whether a party has standing to sue under the Act. Cf. Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1164 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that the “risk of duplicative damages” is a factor to be considered in deciding whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a false advertising claim under Section 43 of the Lanham Act). But the Russian Federation is not a party to this litigation, and a brief ad hoc letter to the Court from the current Deputy Director of an administrative agency, asserting that the Federation as a whole will in the future consider itself bound by the outcome of this litigation does not, in our view, eliminate the risk of duplicative and conflicting litigation. And even if such a letter did begin to assuage those concerns, such policy interests could not override our statutory analysis here. Further, we recognize that foreign states owning registered trademarks for commercial use may face a number of different and even challenging considerations in deciding how and when to enforce the rights protected by their internationally-deployed marks. We do not speculate why the Russian Federation settled on this particular arrangement with FTE as 34 the means of pursuing any rights it had in the Marks or in particular of asserting its United States rights in the Marks. We observe, however, that the Lanham Act – particularly in its provisions governing the “assignment” of trademarks and those relating to statutory standing to sue under the Act – sets out formal requirements aligned with the policies it is designed to promote. Had the Russian Federation effected a valid assignment here, FTE could sue under Section 32(1) as an “assign.” As the relationship between the Russian Federation and FTE is now structured, however, it cannot, consistent with the Act. B. FTE Is Not a “Legal Representative” of the Russian Federation for Purposes of the Act We next consider whether FTE qualifies as a legal representative under the Act. The District Court concluded that FTE had to satisfy two conditions to achieve this status: “[A] party qualifies as a legal representative under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act if the party has the authority to appear on behalf of the registrant/owner with respect to the registrant/owner’s legal interests and the registrant/owner is unable or incapable of representing itself and enforcing its own rights.” FTE III, 2011 WL 4005321, at  (emphasis in original). In this case, the District Court saw no adequate basis in the complaint or in the law for concluding that the 35 Russian Federation is legally incapable of representing itself, and therefore held that FTE did not qualify as a “legal representative.” Id. On appeal, FTE argues that the District Court interpreted the term “legal representative” too narrowly when it required that the real party in interest be legally incapable of representing itself. FTE submits that, as used in the Act, the phrase “legal representative” should be construed to include a “part[y] exercising another person’s rights over a trademark on that person’s behalf.” Appellants’ Br. 37. The interpretation of the phrase “legal representative” in the Lanham Act context appears to present a question of first impression in the federal courts of appeal. After review of the language and structure of the Lanham Act and the district court opinions on point, and remaining mindful of relevant comity concerns, we conclude that the District Court here correctly interpreted the phrase. Because FTE has failed to allege facts plausibly showing that it qualifies as a “legal representative,” it may not proceed in that capacity. 1. Interpretation of the Phrase “Legal Representative” In its broadest usage, the phrase “legal representative” may refer simply to “[o]ne who stands for or acts on behalf of another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1416 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “representative”). Often, however, 36 its meaning may be more precise. It may refer, for example, to an “executor or administrator” designated to act on behalf of a party who is incapable of acting on his own behalf, Rock-Ola Mfg. Corp. v. Filben Mfg. Co., 168 F.2d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 1948) (interpreting a contract including the phrase “legal representative”), or a trustee named to act on behalf of a party who, by law or agreement, is unauthorized to represent his own interests, see In re Casco Chem. Co., 335 F.2d 645, 651 (5th Cir. 1964) (concluding that a bankruptcy trustee is a “legal representative” for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). We must therefore look to the language and purposes of the Lanham Act to construe the phrase “legal representative” for present purposes. The text and structure of the Lanham Act support defendants’ interpretation. Section 32(1) expressly restricts standing to the “registrant” (which the Act expressly defines as the owner or, as we have said, his “legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns”). 15 U.S.C. § 1127. By contrast, Section 43 of the Act allows suits “by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged” by the defendant’s actions. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) (emphasis added). To interpret the phrase “legal representative” broadly would permit both the registrant of the trademark and his putative “legal representative” to file separate suits against the same defendant for the 37 same infringing act – a result that seems inconsistent with Congress’s stated intention to limit standing to the single “registrant” of the trademark under Section 32(1) as opposed to the broad standing afforded plaintiffs suing under Section 43. See Nat’l Licensing Ass’n v. Inland Joseph Fruit Co., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1255 (E.D. Wash. 2004) (“Although the term ‘legal representative’ is not defined by the Act, [a broad construction] would be inconsistent with the obvious intention to limit trademark infringement suits to those [who] have or had ownership interests in the trademark and the historically restrictive interpretation given to ‘registrant.’”). Further, adopting FTE’s interpretation of “legal representative” in this context – namely, that a “legal representative” includes “parties like FTE that have been given rights conferring control over trademarks ultimately owned by others,” Reply Br. 1 – would raise constitutional concerns, thus militating against that interpretation. It is well established that a party must demonstrate “injury-in-fact” to have constitutional standing, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), and that such injury must be particular to the claim raised and the relief sought, e.g., Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008). Applying Lujan, we have held that an investment manager to whom investor-clients had given power-of-attorney and significant authority over investment 38 decisions lacked constitutional standing to file a securities fraud claim on the clients’ behalf. W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 549 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Huff”). In Huff we recognized that, consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008), the “minimum requirement for an injury-in-fact is that the plaintiff have legal title to, or a proprietary interest in, the claim,” even if that title was not originally held by the plaintiff but was received through an assignment made by the initial holder of the claim. Huff, 549 F.3d at 108. We also recognized “a few . . . prudential exceptions to the ‘injury-in-fact’ requirement,” id. at 109, and we explained that these “exceptions permit third-party standing where the plaintiff can demonstrate (1) a close relationship to the injured party and (2) a barrier to the injured party’s ability to assert its own interests,” id.; see also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 130-31 (2004). FTE’s proposed interpretation of “legal representative,” however, would extend standing to parties whose sole interest in a trademarkinfringement action is a contractually-derived right to bring the claim, without owning the claim or having been assigned the claim, even if the actual trademark owner is capable of bringing suit on her own behalf. To ensure that our construction of the term “legal representative” avoids a 39 possible conflict with the requirements of Article III, we read it as requiring the trademark holder’s legally-recognized inability to assert a claim for infringement. Cf. Gollust v. Mendell, 501 U.S. 115, 125 (1991) (requiring plaintiff in shareholder-derivative suit to maintain a stake in the outcome of the litigation to avoid “serious constitutional doubt whether that plaintiff could demonstrate the standing required by Article III’s case-or-controversy limitation on federal court jurisdiction”). FTE cites McClaskey v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., 138 F.2d 493 (3d Cir. 1943), in support of its argument for a broader reading of the phrase. In McClaskey, the court examined whether, under the patent laws, a sheriff could serve as the “legal representative” of a patent holder, and therefore be empowered to transfer a patent through a creditors’ sale of the patent holder’s assets. Id. at 494. The court permitted the sheriff to go forward, concluding that “we can entertain no doubt that a patent may be reached and sold by a creditors’ bill.” Id. at 495. FTE argues that because the Third Circuit did not consider whether the patent holder was “unavailable to bring suit,” the language “legal representative” in the context of the Lanham Act need not be read to include such a requirement. But McClaskey does not support FTE’s argument. The court’s holding there turned on the analogy it drew between the sheriff and a 40 “trustee specifically appointed” by a court for the purpose of disposing of a debtor’s property. Id. at 500. As we recognized in Huff, a trustee’s authority to bring suit on behalf of a trust (or otherwise represent a trust) flows from a special, legally-recognized obligation on the part of the trustee to protect the interests of the trust, which – like the debtor and patent holder in McClaskey – has become legally incapable of representing itself. See Huff, 549 F.3d at 109-10; see also Sprint, 554 U.S. at 287-88. In other words, even if we were bound by McClaskey, that opinion merely illustrates that a third party may serve as a “legal representative,” even where the represented party is physically present, so long as the represented party is somehow disabled from asserting the rights at issue. Cf. Sprint, 554 U.S. at 288 (finding that party with “contractual obligation” to litigate claim has Article III standing in situation where party was also assigned title to the claim).15 Finally, FTE argues that the District Court’s interpretation of “legal representative” offends international comity by “ignor[ing] the decisions made by a foreign sovereign to place trademarks and the commercial operations associated with them in the hands of a state enterprise.” Appellants’ Br. at 46. International comity is “a consideration 15 For the reasons stated above, we also find unconvincing a district court case that FTE has identified holding to the contrary of our view. See Idaho Potato Comm’n v. Wash. Potato Comm’n, 410 F. Supp. 171 (D. Idaho 1976). 41 guiding courts, where possible, towards interpretations of domestic law that avoid conflict with foreign law.” Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92, 111 (2d Cir. 2013). Considerations of comity are not, however, matters of “absolute obligation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the concept of comity calls for an examination of “all of the relevant interests of all of the nations affected by the court’s decision.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see also Pravin Banker Assocs. v. Banco Popular Del Peru, 109 F.3d 850, 855 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[E]xtending comity . . . is only appropriate if it is consistent with United States government policy.”). Here, concern for international comity does not overcome the United States’ interests in enforcing its own trademark laws within its borders, or counsel the judicial creation of an exception to the Lanham Act’s express requirements as consistently construed over time. Foreign sovereigns desiring to avail themselves of the protections of United States laws, particularly on commercial matters such as this, must observe United States prerequisites unless Congress directs otherwise. We thus conclude that to serve as a “legal representative” entitled to bring suit under Section 32(1) on behalf of a trademark holder, a putative plaintiff must demonstrate both its legal authority to represent the owner and that the trademark holder is legally incapable of representing itself. 42 Applying that rule here, we observe that in neither the original nor the operative complaint did FTE allege that the Russian Federation was incapable of bringing this suit on its own behalf. FTE III, 2011 WL 4005321, at . Indeed, on appeal, FTE appears to acknowledge that the Russian Federation could appear in this suit; it now argues that the District Court should have permitted the Russian Federation “to join or be substituted into this action.” Appellants’ Reply Br. 27-28. Only an amicus brief submitted to this Court on behalf of the Russian Federation contends that the Russian Federation is unauthorized to appear in this litigation.16 Noting this discordance between plaintiffs and amicus, we decline to accord significant weight to the Federation’s argument both because it was not raised below and because an amicus brief is “not a method for injecting new issues into an appeal.” Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 445 (2d Cir. 2001).17 16 The “Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation” has moved for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellants, and has spoken to these questions in its amicus brief. That motion is GRANTED. 17 In any event, as defendants argue, Russian law may not bar the Russian Federation from suing in its own capacity. The Russian Civil Code provides, among other things, that the owner of property “may demand the elimination of any violations of his right even though these violations are not combined with deprivation of possession.” Russian Civil Code art. 304, SPA 78. Although the same chapter extends similar rights to parties who have claim to the property “by right of . . . operative management,” id. art. 305, SPA 78-79, nothing in the Code appears to prohibit the true owner – in the case of the Marks, the Russian Federation – from bringing suit to assert its rights. Indeed, the alleged 43 In sum, since plaintiffs have failed sufficiently to allege that the Russian Federation is unable to appear in this litigation, FTE is not the Russian Federation’s “legal representative” for the purpose of bringing suit under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act. C. The Russian Federation Has Not “Ratified” This Suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 Sufficiently to Avoid Joinder FTE argues finally that even if it would ordinarily be unable to sue on its own for infringement of the trademarks at issue, its suit here should be permitted to proceed because the Russian Federation, as the real party in interest, has “ratified” the litigation by virtue of the May 2011 letter cited above. We cannot agree. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) provides that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest,” but that [t]he court may not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest until, after an objection, a reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action. After ratification, joinder, or substitution, the action proceeds as if it had been originally commenced by the real party in interest. To ratify a suit, the real party in interest must “(1) authorize continuation of the action and (2) agree to be bound by its result.” ICON Grp., Inc. v. Mahogany Run Dev. Corp., 829 F.2d 473, 478 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Charles infringement may cause different damages to the Russian Federation than to FTE. 44 Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Richard L. Marcus, 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1555 (3d ed. 2013). Even accepting, based on the May 2011 letter (see supra, note 14) that the Russian Federation endorses FTE’s authority to bring this suit and is willing to be bound by this litigation – propositions that we have questioned – plaintiffs cannot deploy Rule 17 to bypass the standing requirement of Section 32(1), which permits only “registrants” to bring actions for infringement of registered marks. The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b), provides that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” Recently, a plurality of the Supreme Court instructed that we should consider a rule “substantive” for the purposes of the Rules Enabling Act if it “alters the rules of decision by which the court will adjudicate those rights.” Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431, 1442 (2010) (plurality opinion) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). A rule is “procedural,” in contrast, if it “governs only the manner and the means by which the litigants’ rights are enforced.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, to extend standing to FTE through “ratification” under Rule 17(a) would do more than alter “the manner and the means” for 45 enforcing the Russian Federation’s rights. Id. at 1442. To enlarge standing in this way would extend the entitlement to sue to a new party that is otherwise unauthorized under the statute at issue to bring suit to enforce whatever rights it may claim. Indeed, it would endow FTE with a right that is not now available at all to non-registrants under Section 32(1). Such a decision would amount to an improper expansion of the substantive rights provided by the Act. Stichting Ter Behartiging Van De Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int’l B.V. v. Schreiber, 407 F.3d 34, 49 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The procedural mechanisms set forth in Rule 17(a) for ameliorating real party in interest problems may not, under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b), be employed to expand substantive rights.”); see also Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 710 F.3d 483, 488 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that the availability of a class action mechanism under Rule 23 cannot create a right to sue but rather “presupposes the existence of a claim”). Our Court previously rejected an argument similar to that of FTE in the context of the Copyright Act. See Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982), superseded on other grounds by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(a). Because the copyright holder had purportedly ratified the suit under Rule 17, the plaintiff in Eden Toys maintained that it too had standing to pursue a copyright action even though it had not 46 registered the copyright. Declining to adopt that position, we explained: “While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that only the ‘owner of an exclusive right under a copyright’ may bring suit.” Id. at 32 n.3 (citations omitted).18 Similar reasoning requires us to reject FTE’s contention here. D. Dismissal of Remaining Claims We also affirm the District Court’s decision to dismiss Cristall’s trademark infringement claims. In support of its asserted statutory standing to sue, Cristall alleges only that it obtained from FTE “the exclusive right to produce STOLICHNAYA vodka for sale in the United States.” Am. Compl. ¶ 6, J.A. 257. Its damages may be different from FTE’s for any proven infringement, but Cristall’s interest in the Marks is entirely derivative of FTE’s. Because FTE lacks statutory standing to bring this trademark infringement claim, so does Cristall. We thus affirm the District Court’s 18 We also reject FTE’s argument that we should remand the case to the District Court to permit FTE to add the Russian Federation as a plaintiff through “joinder” or “substitution” under Rule 17(a). FTE has had ample time since 2004, when the original complaint was filed, to join the Russian Federation as a party and has failed to do so. As early as July 2005, defendants argued that FTE’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to join the Russian Federation. Further, as described above, our October 2010 summary order expressed concerns about whether the Russian Federation should be joined in this litigation, see 400 F. App’x at 614, and yet the Third Amended Complaint did not add the Russian Federation as a plaintiff. It is simply too late. 47 dismissal of Cristall’s Claim 1 (federal trademark infringement) and Claim 2 (contributory trademark infringement). As to Claim 3 (declaratory judgment of ownership), Claim 4 (rectification of the trademark register), and Claim 5 (cancellation of register under Section 37 of the Lanham Act), asserted by both FTE and Cristall, we conclude that the District Court properly held that, absent Lanham Act standing to sue for infringement, plaintiffs also lack standing to seek these remedies, which the District Court termed “ownership-bolstering” relief under the Lanham Act. See McCarthy § 30:110 (“Lanham Act § 37 assumes a properly instituted and otherwise jurisdictionally supportable action involving a registered mark.”). Finally, we affirm the District Court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ related state law misappropriation claim (Claim 6). We review that decision for abuse of discretion. Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Absent a basis for adjudicating the federal claims, it was well within the District Court’s discretion to go no further.