MAK asserts Count Eight against all five defendants. See Complaint at 148-152. While the License Agreement — and thus the License Agreement's forum-selection clause— applies only to defendant SES America, the court dismisses the abandonment of the Marks claim against the other four defendants for the following reasons. First, in the License Agreement, the parties agreed that SES America "is the owner and/or has the right to license” the Marks. Thus, it appears from the record before the court that SES America has some interest, and perhaps the sole interest, in the Marks. As a result, it is likely that SES America is an indispensable party to any abandonment claim concerning the Secure Eco Shred Marks. See Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon, S.A., 974 F.Supp. 302, 310 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also MasterCard Int’l, Inc. v. Visa Int'l
holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts holding a party seeking mandamus must serve the party against whom relief is sought recognizing that generally a nonparty to an arbitration agreement does not have standing to invoke the agreement but considering whether the nonparty could force arbitration because it was a third party beneficiary of the contract a successor in interest to the contracting party or an agent of the contracting party holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution holding that in a suit where a party sought cancellation of a mark under the abandonment doctrine a nonparty with an interest in the mark was a necessary party under fedrcivp 19