August 27, 2025
Willkie along with co-counsel recently secured a published victory in a trademark dispute before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of HR tech startup People Center, Inc. (d/b/a/ Rippling).
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that Ripple Analytics brought against Rippling alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition over its use of the term “Ripple” in the HR software space. Rippling had prevailed at the trial court to have the case dismissed with prejudice. Willkie partner Jeremy Bylund successfully defended Rippling’s win, arguing the case before a Second Circuit panel earlier this year.
The key issues on appeal included (1) whether an exclusive user of a mark could sue for unfair competition because it fell within the “zone of interest” in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 129 (2014), and (2) whether a dismissal was proper under Rule 17 – an area where dismissals are rare and case law is limited.
The Second Circuit’s decision, handed down on August 26, 2025, concluded that Ripple Analytics could not fall within the Lanham Act’s “zone of interest” of those with standing to sue for unfair competition because it had assigned all rights to its intellectual property to its Chairman and CEO. The appeals court also determined that the trial court had correctly dismissed Ripple Analytics’ trademark infringement claim as it was not the “real party in interest” under Rule 17, and had repeatedly failed to cure the real-party-in-interest deficiency. This case joins a very limited number of cases where Rule 17 dismissals have been upheld.
The team included Willkie partner Jeremy Bylund as lead appellate counsel, with co-counsel Bruce Baber and Caroline Freeman from King & Spalding, and local counsel Tim Williams of Dority & Manning PA.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that Ripple Analytics brought against Rippling alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition over its use of the term “Ripple” in the HR software space. Rippling had prevailed at the trial court to have the case dismissed with prejudice. Willkie partner Jeremy Bylund successfully defended Rippling’s win, arguing the case before a Second Circuit panel earlier this year.
The key issues on appeal included (1) whether an exclusive user of a mark could sue for unfair competition because it fell within the “zone of interest” in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 129 (2014), and (2) whether a dismissal was proper under Rule 17 – an area where dismissals are rare and case law is limited.
The Second Circuit’s decision, handed down on August 26, 2025, concluded that Ripple Analytics could not fall within the Lanham Act’s “zone of interest” of those with standing to sue for unfair competition because it had assigned all rights to its intellectual property to its Chairman and CEO. The appeals court also determined that the trial court had correctly dismissed Ripple Analytics’ trademark infringement claim as it was not the “real party in interest” under Rule 17, and had repeatedly failed to cure the real-party-in-interest deficiency. This case joins a very limited number of cases where Rule 17 dismissals have been upheld.
The team included Willkie partner Jeremy Bylund as lead appellate counsel, with co-counsel Bruce Baber and Caroline Freeman from King & Spalding, and local counsel Tim Williams of Dority & Manning PA.
