Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd., 19 Civ. 9404(LAP). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200221e61
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2020
Summary: ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay the proceedings in this case pending parallel proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"). That request is denied. Even by the most optimistic of estimates, the TTAB proceeding "should be decided within 21 months." ( See Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law on Defendants' Motion to Stay, dated February 7, 2020 [dkt no. 45] at 5.) Plaintiff estimates the delay at two and hal
Summary: ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay the proceedings in this case pending parallel proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"). That request is denied. Even by the most optimistic of estimates, the TTAB proceeding "should be decided within 21 months." ( See Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law on Defendants' Motion to Stay, dated February 7, 2020 [dkt no. 45] at 5.) Plaintiff estimates the delay at two and half..
More
ORDER
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay the proceedings in this case pending parallel proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"). That request is denied.
Even by the most optimistic of estimates, the TTAB proceeding "should be decided within 21 months." (See Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law on Defendants' Motion to Stay, dated February 7, 2020 [dkt no. 45] at 5.) Plaintiff estimates the delay at two and half years at the TTAB and another two years for the appeal. (See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay, dated January 31, 2020 [dkt. no. 43] at 5.)
In either case, the delay will result in undue prejudice to Plaintiff. The requested stay would deny enforcement of the Judgment and the Settlement Agreement that the parties entered into in 2016. Given the prior findings of validity of Mixpac's Candy Colored Registrations both by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by Judge Kaplan in Sulzer Mixpac AG v. A&N Trading Co., et al., No. 19 Civ. 9175, dkt. no. 144 (Aug. 14, 2019), there is no reason to delay Mixpac's enforcement of its rights, both under its Registrations and its Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for a Stay [dkt. no. 39] is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
