IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—11th Cir.: Voluntary dismissal against Etsy store owner affirmed in basketball memorabilia dispute, (Dec 5, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

There was no error in allowing a trademark holder to voluntarily dismiss its claims because the voluntary dismissal, as opposed to dismissal on the standing or jurisdictional grounds sought by the defendant, caused no prejudice to the defendant and still preserved independent adjudication of pending counterclaims.

In a trademark infringement suit against 75 defendants, a Florida district court did not err in allowing the owner of trademarks tied to basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to voluntarily dismiss its claims against an individual defendant who operated an Etsy store and appeared in the action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held. Even though the court had entered a temporary restraining order against the defendant, he was unable to show he suffered any prejudice from the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of claims against him, as opposed to dismissal on standing or jurisdictional grounds, at the preliminary injunction phase. The dismissal did not affect the individual’s pending counterclaims (Ain Jeem, Inc. v. Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified On Schedule A, No. 23-13380 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025)).

Ain Jeem, Inc. (Ain Jeem) brought suit for trademark infringement against more than 75 defendants, alleging that each had infringed marks relating to the basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The district court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the defendants from selling infringing products. One of the defendants was an Etsy seller under the name Devildogstreasure, who had allegedly sold an infringing product; namely, a painted commemorative plate featuring the image of Abdul-Jabbar, which had been purchased from a Goodwill store.

Through discovery, the Devildogstreasure Etsy account was associated with its owner, Carl Puckett. Puckett and his wife, Marcella Pucket, appearing pro se, counterclaimed for tortious interference with business contracts, alleging that the temporary restraining order had caused both Etsy and Paypal to shut down Pucket’s accounts. Puckett moved to modify the temporary restraining order, which was denied, but at the preliminary injunction stage Ain Jeem voluntarily withdrew its request for an injunction as to Puckett and Devildogstreasure, and the restraining order then expired.

Puckett then brought third party claims against Abdul Jabar, Etsy, and Ain Jeen’s attorneys seeking millions in damages for violations of Constitutional rights, among other claims. Ain Jeem moved to voluntarily dismiss its claims against Puckett. The trial court allowed the voluntary dismissal and dismissed Puckett’s counterclaims and third-party claims. Puckett appealed, originally while the suit was still pending against other defendants, and that appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, after which Puckett sought and was denied a writ of certiorari. Once final judgment was entered, Puckett appealed again.

Voluntary dismissal. Puckett argued that the district court erred in allowing Ain Jeem to voluntarily dismiss its claims against him, rather than dismissing those same claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over him, lack of standing, or as improper shotgun pleading. The court found that the trial court had properly left Puckett’s counterclaims pending for independent adjudication and that Puckett could not show he had suffered any prejudice from the particular ground the trial court had used to dismiss the claims.

Temporary restraining order. Puckett argued that the trial court erred in granting a temporary restraining order by not following proper procedures. The court found it lacked jurisdiction over this challenge, noting that while preliminary injunctions are appealable, temporary restraining orders are not, and the issue was moot because the order had expired.

Prior appeals. Finally, the court found that there was no basis to vacate the prior appellate orders in the case. Even if it had jurisdiction to reconsider those orders, there was no error in the prior appellate panels’ decisions finding no appellate jurisdiction existed at the time. Those appeals had been brought before a final judgment on the merits.

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as to the temporary restraining order for lack of jurisdiction and otherwise affirmed the decision below.

The Case is No. 23-13380.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Richard Guerra (The Brickell IP Group PLLC) for Ain Jeem, Inc. Carl Ellen Puckett, Jr., pro se. Marcella Anderson Puckett, pro se.

Companies: Ain Jeem, Inc.; The Individuals, Partnerships, and UN Inc. Associations Identified On Schedule A; Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia; Akerman LLP

Cases: Trademark AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews