Ascend Capital LLC v. Moolex, LLC et al. (D. Mass. 21-dv-10972).

Ascend Capital filed suit in June 2021, saying that Moolex and its owner, Rahul Chaturvedi, had wrongfully claimed rights in the mark “NUSPEECH” and seeking a declaration of its rights in the mark as the assignee of the same.  Judge Saylor previously denied Ascend’s motion for default judgment against Moolex, who had not answered the complaint, finding that there were no unusual circumstances supporting default against less than all of the defendants.

Moolex’s owner, Rahul Chaturvedi, in the meanwhile had asserted counterclaims against Ascend, Ascend Health Care, Epilog Health and Arvind Jaiswal (the owner of the two Ascend entities and Epilog) for cancellation of the mark, trademark infringement, and unfair and deceptive business practices under Mass. G.L. c. 93A, saying that he had created the mark and that Ascend had previously been a licensee rather than the owner of trademark rights in the mark.  Judge Saylor granted Ascend’s motion to dismiss these counterclaims.  He found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Ascend Health Care, Epilog and Jaiswal.  He noted that the two companies are registered in Nevada, and that the counterclaims made no allegations that they transacted any business in Massachusetts, resulting in no general personal jurisdiction over these entities.  With respect to specific personal jurisdiction, the counterclaims again made no allegations of any activities of the counterclaim defendants that took place in or targeted Massachusetts.

Judge Saylor also dismissed the counterclaims seeking cancellation of the trademarks, finding that the counterclaims failed to allege a commercial injury to Chaturvedi.  While companies that he owned had used the mark in the past, the counterclaims made no allegations that it had any definite, concrete plans to do so in the present or future, but instead objected to the registrations as being made for the purpose of creating a cause of action against Chaturvedi.  Likewise, Chaturvedi’s claim for common law trademark infringement failed because he could not show current use of the mark.