MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Fashion Television LLC (“Plaintiff”), a New York-based company, alleges that Defendant APT Satellite Company Limited (“Defendant”), a Hong Kong-based satellite company, is engaging in contributory and vicarious trademark infringement by disseminating an allegedly infringing television channel called “Fashion TV” through its satellite. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1-1,
1-3.) Defendant now moves to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a) and 28 U.S.C. section 1927. (Def.’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Consolidate and Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 9 (“Def.’s Mem.”).) Defendants also sought to consolidate the action with one filed by an affiliate of Plaintiff. As explained in footnote 1 below, that aspect of the motion practice has been mooted by the voluntarily dismissal of the other action.This Court has federal question jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1441.The Court has reviewed the submissions of both parties carefully and, for following reasons, dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and denies Plaintiff’s motion for jurisdictional discovery. The Court also denies Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees.BACKGROUNDThe following facts drawn from the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of the instant motion practice. The Court will also consider facts drawn from the parties’ evidentiary submissions, which are uncontroverted unless otherwise noted, insofar as they relate the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant and the request for attorneys’ fees. Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Institute, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 183 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“Both defendants and plaintiff have submitted affidavits and other documentation outside of the pleadings…. Because a Rule 12(b)(2) motion is inherently a matter requiring the resolution of factual issues outside of the pleadings all pertinent documentation submitted by the parties may be considered in deciding the motion.”) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted).Plaintiff is a New York-based corporation with many international affiliates that collectively own a large portfolio of “Fashion Television” trademarks bearing the terms “Fashion Television” or “Fashion TV,” which it acquired from Bell Media Inc. (formerly known as CHUM and CTV). (Compl.
