Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417 (8th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417 (8th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the letter stated that, unless anheuser were to respond within five days, supreme had authorized its attorneys to take legal action.”
55 citation events (51 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bunge-SCF Grain, LLC v. Webster (moed, 2023-12-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bunge-SCF Grain, LLC v. Webster
E.D. Mo. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the letter stated that, unless anheuser were to respond within five days, supreme had authorized its attorneys to take legal action.
cited Cited as authority (rule) SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy LLC
E.D. Mo. · 2019 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Dairy Queen Corporation v. W.B. Mason Co., Inc.
D. Minnesota · 2019 · confidence medium
Such compelling circumstances may include: “(1) the first filing party acted in bad faith;4 (2) the first-filing party raced to the courthouse to preempt a suit by the second-filing party when they were on notice that the second-filing party was going to imminently file suit; and (3) the first-filing party’s suit was for declaratory judgment.” Motorscope, Inc. v. Precision Tune, Inc., 2012 WL 4742278 , at *3 (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, Inc. v. Carstensen Contracting, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see"
D.S.D. · 2018 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’| Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CruiseCompete, LLC v. Smolinski & Associates, Inc.
S.D. Iowa · 2012 · confidence medium
See Florida v. United States, 285 F.2d 596, 604 (8th Cir.1960) (“Courts are not required by law to forbear but may do so as a matter of comity and to avoid duplicate litigation.”); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) (finding doctrine is subject to “abuse of discretion” review).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Wells Fargo & Co.
S.D. Iowa · 2009 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) CBS Interactive Inc. v. National Football League Players Ass'n
D. Minnesota · 2009 · confidence medium
Sept.2, 2003) (citing AnheuserBusch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) and Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc., 765 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clockwork Home Services, Inc. v. Robinson
E.D. Mo. · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999); Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. Central States Southeast, 70 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1203 , 116 S.Ct. 1704 , 134 L.Ed.2d 803 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mosier v. Cargill Financial Services Corp. (In Re Mansfield Corp.) (2×)
Bankr. D. Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Security National Bank
N.D. Iowa · 2004 · confidence medium
See Midwest Motor Express, 70 F.3d at 1017; accord Keymer, 169 F.3d at 503 n. 2 (“The first-filed rule gives priority, when parallel litigation has been instituted in separate courts, to the party who first establishes jurisdiction in order to conserve judicial *896 resources and avoid conflicting rulings.”); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) (“The well-established rule is that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, ‘the first court in which jurisdiction attaches has priority to consider the case.’ ”) (quoting United States Fire Ins.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Touchstone Research Laboratory, Ltd. v. Anchor Equipment Sales, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.D.W. Va. · 2003 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Central States Industrial Supply, Inc. v. McCullough
N.D. Iowa · 2002 · confidence medium
See Midwest Motor Express, 70 F.3d at 1017 ; accord Keymer, 169 F.3d at 503 n. 2 (“The first-filed rule gives priority, when parallel litigation has been instituted in separate courts, to the party who first establishes jurisdiction in order to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings.”); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) (“The well-established rule is that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, ‘the first court in which jurisdiction attaches has priority to consider the case.’ ”) (quoting United States Fire Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of MO v. Prudential Health
8th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri, Ex Rel. Jeremiah W. (\Jay\") Nixon (2×)
unknown court · 2001 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1999). 21 Drawing upon Colorado River and the circuit decisions we have described above, we discern a prudential limitation on the exercise of federal jurisdiction.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Med-Tec Iowa, Inc. v. Nomos Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Iowa · 1999 · confidence medium
Thus, the first-filed rule “ ‘gives priority, for purposes of choosing among possible venues when parallel litigation has been instituted in separate courts, to the party who first establishes jurisdiction.’ ” Midwest Motor Express, 70 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Northwest Airlines, 989 F.2d at 1006 ); accord Keymer, 169 F.3d at 503 n. 2 (“The first-filed rule gives priority, when parallel litigation has been instituted in separate courts, to the party who first establishes jurisdiction in order to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings.”); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwendiman Partners, LLC v. Hurt
D. Neb. · 1999 · confidence medium
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999); Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. Central States Southeast, 70 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1203 , 116 S.Ct. 1704 , 134 L.Ed.2d 803 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Financial Credit Investments II, Trust E vs. Estate of Georgia Towers, et al.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of federal lawsuit in Missouri where the 3 This opinion should not be read to decide any choice-of-law issue; we refer to 18 Del.
discussed Cited "see" Brand Advantage Group, Inc. v. Henshaw
D. Minnesota · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that less than two weeks passing between notice 2 Henshaw argues that the Wisconsin action is not a declaratory judgment action because it also includes claims for monetary damages pursuant to two Wisconsin criminal statutes aimed at preventing certain conspiracies and from coercing a person from engaging in lawful work.
discussed Cited "see" Digitalira.com, LLC v. The Kingdom Trust Company (2×)
D.S.D. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited "see" Lewis & Clark Reg'l Water Sys., Inc. v. Carstensen Contracting, Inc. (2×)
usdistct · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Doc. 10-3; Doc. 26 at 5; see Anheuser-Busch, Inc. , 167 F.3d at 419 (reasoning that a less than two-week period "from when Supreme sent its cease and desist letter to Anheuser to the time Supreme filed the Florida action ... suggests that Anheuser raced to the courthouse to usurp Supreme's forum choice").
discussed Cited "see" Everest Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Ro
D. Minnesota · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that where less than two weeks'passed between Supreme’s sending of a cease-and-desist letter and the filing of Anheuser’s lawsuit, “[t]his short period of time suggests that Anheuser raced to the courthouse”).
discussed Cited "see" Foreign Candy Co. v. Promotion in Motion, Inc.
N.D. Iowa · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999) (finding compelling circumstances where the defendant’s letter gave the plaintiff five days to respond to avoid a lawsuit but instead of responding to the letter, the plaintiff filed suit); ACF Indus.
examined Cited "see" Clergy Financial, LLC v. Clergy Financial Services, Inc. (3×)
D. Minnesota · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir.1999); Northwest Airlines, 989 F.2d at 1007 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Emanuel Becerra, Marijke Myland, Krista Ivy, David Harris, Tina McBride, and Leslie Cusse, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Target Corporation
D. Minnesota · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Anheuser- Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion staying the second-filed action).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Austin Beber v. Navsav Holdings, LLC
8th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Loc. 24, 751 F.2d 721, 730 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that a district court in our circuit considered these same three options); Nw.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Cambria Company, LLC
D. Minnesota · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming the decision by the court hearing the first- filed action to dismiss the case based on exceptions to the first-filed rule, allowing the case to proceed in the court hearing the second-filed action); see also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (“[T]he general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INCORPORATED, Appellant,
v.
SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee
98-1816.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 28, 1999.
167 F.3d 417
Douglas N. Masters, Chicago, IL, argued (Edward G. Wierzbicki and Bradley Cohn, Chicago, IL, Charles A. Siegel and E. Michael Murphy, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellant., Lawrence Kill, New York, N.Y., argued (Sherri C. Strand, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellee.
Arnold, Fagg, Hall.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge.

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“Anheuser”) appeals the district court’s [2] order dismissing Anheuser’s declaratory judgment action against Supreme International Corp. (“Supreme”) after refusing to apply the first-filed rale. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. FACTS

In January 1996, Anheuser began a national advertising campaign for Bud Ice beer that used a penguin in its design. In September 1996, Supreme acquired rights in penguin trademarks held by Munsingwear, Inc., which had been using penguin designs on golf and apparel since 1954. Beginning in October 1996, Supreme began discussing with Anheuser the possibility of selling clothing to Anheuser in connection with the Bud Ice advertising campaign. In November 1996, a representative of Supreme met in St. Louis, Missouri, with representatives of An-heuser. During this meeting, Supreme objected to Anheuser’s use of a penguin design on Bud Ice apparel. Later that month, Supreme and Anheuser discussed Anheuser’s use of the penguin design as a possible infringement of Supreme’s penguin trademark.

On December 11, 1996, Supreme sent a letter to Anheuser demanding that Anheuser stop all use of the penguin design in its Bud Ice campaign. The letter stated that, unless Anheuser were to respond within five days, Supreme had authorized its attorneys to take legal action. On December 19, 1996, Anheu-ser filed a declaratory judgment action in the[*419] Eastern District of Missouri (the “Missouri action”), seeking a declaration that Anheu-ser’s use of the penguin in the Bud lee campaign was neither infringing nor diluting Supreme’s rights in the penguin trademarks. On December 24,1996, Supreme filed its own action in the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida action”), claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive business practices.

Anheuser filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Florida action, and the Florida court granted the motion, staying the Florida action pending the Missouri court’s decision to apply the first-filed rule. [3] See Supreme Int’l Corp. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 972 F.Supp. 604 (S.D.Fla.1997). Supreme then filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the Missouri action. The Missouri court granted Supreme’s motion, dismissing the Missouri action under the compelling circumstances exception to the first-filed rule. Anheuser appealed. The Florida action has since resumed, with Anheuser having answered Supreme’s complaint, and both parties having served discovery requests.

II. DISCUSSION

We will reverse the district court’s refusal to apply the first-filed rule only if the district court abused its discretion. See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 989 F.2d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir.1993). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

The district court identified the two red flags that indicate the presence of compelling circumstances. First, the district court noted that Anheuser was on notice that Supreme was going to file suit. See id. at 1007. Supreme’s letter to Anheuser gave Anheuser five days to respond to avoid a law suit. Instead of responding to the letter, Anheuser filed the Missouri action. Second, the district court noted that Anheuser’s action was for a declaratory judgment. See id.

In addition to finding both red flags, the district court found the presence of other Northwest factors. Less than two weeks passed from the time Supreme sent its cease and desist letter to Anheuser to the time Supreme filed the Florida action. This short period of time suggests that Anheuser raced to the courthouse to usurp Supreme’s forum choice. See BASF Corp. v. Symington, 50 F.3d 555, 557-58 (8th Cir.1995). In addition, the district court found that Anheuser had not alleged any adverse effect on the Bud Ice campaign by Supreme’s trademark infringement claim. See Northwest, 989 F.2d at 1007 (adverse affect found where first-filing party claimed that second-filing party’s suit chilled recruiting and hiring efforts). Although it may be true that Anheuser has a lot at stake in its Bud Ice campaign, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Anheuser has even slowed down the campaign or that the campaign has been harmed in any way. Finally, we find that the interests of justice are best served by allowing the case to proceed in Florida. See id. at 1005; see also BASF Corp., 50 F.3d at 557-58. Discovery in the Florida action is scheduled to be completed early this year, and a trial on the merits is scheduled to begin in June 1999.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order granting Supreme’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

2

. The Honorable George F. Gunn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

3

. "The well-established rule is that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, 'the first court in which jurisdiction attaches has priority to consider the case.’” United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 920 F.2d 487, 488 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting Orthmann v. Apple River Campground Inc., 765 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir.1985)).