Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp.
Decision Date | 04 September 2008 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 07-1248-cv. |
Citation | 541 F.3d 476 |
Parties | EMPRESA CUBANA DEL TABACO, doing business as Cubatabaco, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. CULBRO CORPORATION, General Cigar Co., Inc. and General Cigar Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, Alfred Dunhill Ltd., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Andrew L. Deutsch, DLA Piper U.S. LLP (Joshua S. Sohn, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, Harry C. Marcus and Scott Greenberg, Morgan & Finnegan, LLP, of counsel), New York, NY, for Defendants-Counter-Claimaints-Appellants.
Michael Krinsky (David B. Goldstein, Christopher J. Klatell, on the brief), Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.
Before: RAGGI, WESLEY, LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Defendants-counter-claimants-appellants Culbro Corporation, General Cigar Co., Inc., and General Cigar Holdings, Inc. (collectively, "General Cigar") appeal from a March 14, 2007 order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sweet, J.) denying a motion for an order directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to dismiss the pending petitions of plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee Empresa Cubana del Tabaco ("Cubatabaco") to cancel General Cigar's registration of the COHIBA trademark for cigars sold in the United States, and to register the mark in Cubatabaco's name. See Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 478 F.Supp.2d 513 (S.D.N.Y.2007). Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relief requested, we affirm.
This case arises from a dispute over the ownership of the COHIBA mark on cigars sold in the United States. That dispute and much of the relevant procedural history leading up to this appeal are described in detail in Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 399 F.3d 462 (2d Cir.2005) ("Empresa V"), familiarity with which is assumed.
Following our decision in Empresa V, the district court issued an order dated May 15, 2006 dismissing all remaining claims in this case, as required by our mandate. On July 6, 2006, General Cigar filed a motion in the district court requesting:
an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119 and the ancillary jurisdiction of the Court, amending the Court's order of May 15, 2006 so as to direct the Director of the [PTO] to (1) dismiss the pending petition of [Cubatabaco] in the [PTO] ... which seeks cancellation of General Cigar's United States Trademark Registrations ... for COHIBA, and (2) dismiss Cubatabaco's pending application before the [PTO] to register the COHIBA mark in its own name; or, in the alternative, entering final judgment that grants such relief in addition to dismissing all remaining claims.
By order dated March 14, 2007, the district court denied the July 6, 2006 motion. See Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco, 478 F.Supp.2d 513. General Cigar now appeals.
The kind of relief General Cigar requested is authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1119. That statute provides that:
In any action involving a registered mark the court may determine the right to registration, order the cancelation of registrations, in whole or in part, restore canceled registrations, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registrations of any party to the action. Decrees and orders shall be certified by the court to the Director [of the PTO], who shall make appropriate entry upon the records of the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be controlled thereby.
15 U.S.C. § 1119. General Cigar did not request section 1119 relief as a counterclaim, but only as part of its July 6, 2006 motion, following the adjudication of the underlying trademark dispute and the district court's dismissal of the action. For this reason, the district court treated the July 6, 2006 motion as one to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). General Cigar concedes that this was an appropriate interpretation.
"A district court's denial of a party's motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is ... reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). Furthermore, the ultimate decision as to whether to grant the kind of relief sought by General Cigar is committed to the discretion of the district court. This is demonstrated by section 1119's use of the permissive "may" in authorizing courts to grant relief, as distinct from its use of the mandatory "shall" in requiring any orders or decrees that are entered to be sent to and followed by the PTO. See Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 346, 125 S.Ct. 694, 160 L.Ed.2d 708 (2005) ( ; see also, e.g., Atsilov v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 112, 116 (2d Cir.2006) ( ). Accordingly, we review the district court's decision in this case not to amend the judgment to include section 1119 relief for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Cent. Mfg., Inc. v. Brett, 492 F.3d 876, 883 (7th Cir.2007).
Rule 59(e) permits a party to seek amendment of a judgment no later than ten days after the judgment is entered. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The parties dispute when and whether judgment actually was entered in this case, and therefore whether the July 6, 2006 motion was timely. We decline to reach the timeliness issue, however, because we are persuaded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the merits.
A request for dismissal of a cancellation proceeding pursuant to section 1119 ordinarily is made as a counterclaim in an infringement action. See, e.g., Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607, 609, 614-15 (2d Cir.1960) ( ); see also Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2008) (); Eagles, Ltd. v. Am. Eagle Found., 356 F.3d 724, 730-31 (6th Cir. 2004) ( ); Thomas J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed.2008) § 30:108 ( ). As the Sixth Circuit stated in Eagles, when such a request is made for the first time after the underlying trademark...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New World Solutions, Inc. v. NameMedia Inc.
...proceeding pursuant to section 1119 ordinarily is made as a counterclaim in an infringement action,” Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp. , 541 F.3d 476, 478 (2d Cir.2008), and whether to grant relief under this statute rests within the discretion of the district court, see id. (explai......
-
Khan v. Addy's BBQ LLC
...The decision whether to grant relief under Section 37 of the Lanham Act "is committed to the discretion of the district court." Empresa Cubana , 541 F.3d at 478 ; see also Abercrombie , 537 F.2d at 13 ("Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, provides authority for the court to canc......
-
CFE Racing Prods., Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc.
...order cancellation of registrations, and the like, endows the district court with discretionary authority. Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 541 F.3d 476, 478 (2d Cir.2008). Therefore, “[a] district court's determination to grant relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119 is reviewed for ......
-
Sheila Lyons & Homecoming Farm, Inc. v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.
...Veterinary Sports Med. and Rehabilitation (“College Countercls.”) 44–45, ¶¶ 103–117, ECF No. 25; see also Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 541 F.3d 476, 478–79 (2d Cir.2008) (discussing process to cancel trademark registrations). Section 1119 states: In any action involving a regi......