Iow, LLC v. Breus, CV18-1649-PHX-DGC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20191203a98
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , Senior District Judge . Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court's order denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition (Counts Five and Six). Doc. 101; see Doc. 94. Plaintiffs have filed a response. Doc. 106. A motion for reconsideration may be granted upon "a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with re
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , Senior District Judge . Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court's order denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition (Counts Five and Six). Doc. 101; see Doc. 94. Plaintiffs have filed a response. Doc. 106. A motion for reconsideration may be granted upon "a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with rea..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.
Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court's order denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition (Counts Five and Six). Doc. 101; see Doc. 94. Plaintiffs have filed a response. Doc. 106.
A motion for reconsideration may be granted upon "a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Defendants argue that the Court manifestly erred in holding that Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989), does not apply to Dr. Breus's The Power of When book. Doc. 101 at 2-8; see Doc. 94 at 19-22.
After again reviewing relevant case law, the Court agrees. The Court will enter an amended order granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs' trademark infringement and unfair competition claims under Rogers. Given this ruling, Defendants' argument that the Court misapprehended the issue of priority as to Plaintiffs' "Power of When" mark is moot. See Doc. 101 at 8-9. The Court will deny the motion for reconsideration in this respect.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 101) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. The Court will issue a separate order amending its initial summary judgment order (Doc. 94).
Source: Leagle
