Polygon Studios Labs, Inc. v. Polygon.io, Inc.

On October 28, 2022, Polygon Studios Labs, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), represented by Anne S. Gaza and Robert M. Vrana of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Polygon.io, Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief for alleged non-infringement of the trademark owned by the defendant. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Delaware with Judge Colm F. Connolly presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff claimed, “Polygon Studios brings this action for a declaratory judgment that its use of the POLYGON STUDIOS mark for its marketing and business development activities in relation to the POLYGON-branded blockchain technology developed by third party Matic Network BVI Ltd. (‘Matic Network’) does not infringe any trademark rights that IO holds.”

Plaintiff alleged that “Defendant IO claims to own rights in the trademarks POLYGON and POLYGON.IO (together, the ‘IO Marks’) for its subscription-based software service that provides stock market and other financial data to its customers. IO has begun a campaign to enforce its purported rights in the IO Marks against third parties using the word POLYGON as part of their brand.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “IO’s complaint against the Matic Defendants in Georgia specifically references Polygon Studios and its Chief Executive Officer, Ryan Wyatt, and wrongly attributes to the Matic Defendants various U.S.-based transactions and activities that are actually Polygon Studios’ activities.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “IO alleges that use of the POLYGON STUDIOS mark infringes IO’s trademark rights. While IO has not yet sued Polygon Studios, its allegations in the Georgia action necessarily imply and convey that it believes Polygon Studios is infringing the IO Marks and the suit gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that IO intends to sue Polygon Studios for trademark infringement. Polygon Studios is not infringing IO’s trademark rights and need not await IO’s lawsuit to adjudicate this case of actual controversy.”

The plaintiff also alleged that “this controversy should be adjudicated as between Polygon Studios and IO in a venue where Polygon Studios can appropriately protect its interests – as opposed to adjudication between IO and third party Matic Defendants in a court that does not have personal jurisdiction over Polygon Studios.”

Plaintiff claimed, “There is no likelihood of confusion created by Polygon Studios’ use of the POLYGON STUDIOS marks, including because Polygon Studios uses the mark in connection with its blockchain-focused marketing and business development efforts, which are distinct from IO’s financial data API services.”

Plaintiff also claimed that “Polygon Studios also offers its services to a different class of consumers and in a different channel of trade than IO’s consumers and trade channels.”

The plaintiff alleged, “Due to IO’s allegations in the Georgia Action directed at the acts of Polygon Studios, and IO’s public trademark enforcement strategy, Polygon Studios has a reasonable apprehension that IO believes Polygon Studios is infringing IO’s trademark rights and will initiate a lawsuit against Polygon Studios, seeking monetary damages as well as an injunction prohibiting Polygon Studios’ use of the POLYGON STUDIOS mark.”

Additionally, Plaintiff alleged, “Thus, an actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between IO and Polygon Studios regarding Polygon Studios’ use of the POLYGON STUDIOS mark.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief for the alleged non-infringement.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory judgement that the plaintiff hasn’t infringed any trademark. The plaintiff also requested an award for costs and expenses.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.