Whether a nonparty trademark licensor's joinder is required under Rule 19(a)

question presented is whether a nonparty’s status as trademark licensor, without more, makes his joinder as a defendant alongside his licensee required under Rule 19(a). Courts interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19(a) hold that a party required for joinder must claim a “non-frivolous interest” in the subject of the action. Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel.? Under federal trademark law, registering a trademark creates strong presumptions about the registration, the mark, and its owner’s exclusive use rights.? ! Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5; 111 S.Ct. 315; 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). ? 553 U.S. 851; 128 S.Ct. 2180; 171 L.Ed.2d 131 (2008). 3 “A certificate of registration of a mark upon the principal register provided by this chapter shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1057(b). li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued The question presented is whether a party required for joinder in an infringement action involving a trademark mark must claim something more than the usual “non-frivolous interest” in the subject of the action and, if so, the interest the nonparty must claim to be Rule 19(a)-required. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19(a), a nonparty required to be joined in an action must face impairment of its interests. The question presented is whether, under Rule 19(a), a district court trademark infringement claim can impair a nonparty’s ability to establish or maintain its trademark rights before the USPTO or TTAB. Respondent Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) is an industry leader in brand protection, representing thousands of intercollegiate and professional athletic departments and teams. It claims it is a trademark licensee under an agreement that requires it to defend the nonparty university (Jackson State University) in court. The question presented is whether, under the circumstances, nonparty Jackson State University can be Rule 19(b)(1) prejudiced by CLC’s trademark infringement defense in the university’s absence, where a resulting judgment will be against respondents and not the university, and where the licensing agreement iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued CLC claims affords the university full indemnity. Also presented for review is whether the dismissal of petitioners’ infringement claims based on sovereign Jackson State University’s nonjoinder leaves petitioners with an adequate remedy against respondents under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19(b)(4).