According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), a plaintiff is given 120 days to serve a defendant, lest the Court dismiss the claim without prejudice (or direct service be made within a certain time period). Here, the 120 period expired on January 31, 2013. Two months later, plaintiff asked for an extension of time to serve the individual defendant, arguing that it has made a number of attempts to serve the defendant, but has not succeeded.
The Court held that it could extend the deadline for "good cause," which has historically involved issues such as sudden illness, natural catastrophe, or evasion of service of process. Problem for the plaintiff was that it did not submit any evidence (affidavit or the like) which demonstrated such good cause.
The Court also recognized its discretion in being able to extend the deadline in a circumstance where the applicable statute of limitations would bar relief to the plaintiff. Here, the Court noted that the Florida state unfair competition claims had a 4 year statute of limitations, but noted that the federal trademark and cybersquatting claims do not have an explicit statute of limitations:
The federal trademark and cybersquatting statutes do not contain a limitations period; rather laches principles apply. See Kason Indus. v. Component Hardware Group, Inc., 120 F.3d 1199, 1203 (11th Cir.1997) (“The Lanham Act does not contain a statute of limitations. However, in trademark cases, this circuit has followed the Sixth Circuit, which applies the period for analogous state law claims as the touchstone for laches.”); see Tandy Corp. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc., 769 F.2d 362, 365 (6th Cir.1985) (“The Lanham Act does not contain a statute of limitations. In determining when a plaintiff's suit should be barred under the Act, courts have consistently used principles of laches as developed by courts of equity.”); What–A–Burger of Va. v. Whataburger of Corpus Christi, 357 F.3d 441, 449 (4th Cir.2004) (“Courts use the doctrine of laches to address the inequities created by a trademark owner who, despite having a colorable claim, allows a competitor to develop its product around the mark and expand its business, only then to lower the litigation boom.”).