Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph Internat'l Corp.
Decision Date | 10 March 1961 |
Citation | 191 F. Supp. 937 |
Parties | TRIUMPH HOSIERY MILLS, INC., Plaintiff, v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and Triumph of Europe, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Lipkowitz & Plaut, New York City, for plaintiff. Irving D. Lipkowitz, I. Robert Harris, New York City, of counsel.
Brumbauch, Free, Graves & Donohue, New York City, for defendants. Granville M. Brumbaugh, Richard G. Fuller, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
On July 15, 1960 I denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. 187 F.Supp. 169. Plaintiff appealed from the order denying its motion. While the case was pending before the Court of Appeals plaintiff learned of facts which, if they had been presented on the original application, plaintiff thought might have led me to a different conclusion. Application was made to the Court of Appeals for leave to renew the motion for a preliminary injunction and such leave was granted. The facts before me on the prior application, insofar as I thought them relevant, were summarized in my opinion, D.C.1960, 187 F.Supp. 169, and, therefore, will not be reviewed at length herein.
Basically, plaintiff's position on the present motion is that a vital finding in my first opinion, namely, that the defendants are "innocent" junior users of the word "Triumph" in their corporate names, was in error and that that error was induced by misrepresentation and concealment by defendants in their papers in opposition to the original motion.
Defendants, on the other hand, contend that plaintiff has no standing to renew their motion since the facts now presented are not "newly discovered evidence" within the meaning of Rule 60(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, in any event, the facts now presented do not warrant any change in my finding of them as innocent junior users.
I will dispose of defendants' procedural argument first. Even though courts are loath to having outstanding orders or judgments which are erroneous, nevertheless, there must be an end to litigation and so final orders can be reconsidered only on a very strong showing. Rule 60(b) cited by defendants, and the rationale upon which it is based, have no application to the present motion. By its terms, Rule 60(b) applies only to final orders. The order denying a preliminary injunction is clearly interlocutory. The rationale upon which the rule is based is equally inappropriate. The litigation is not in any case at an end. The actual trial on the merits has not yet been held. Even when a trial on the merits has been held and an interlocutory judgment fixing liability has been entered Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company v. United States, 1942, 320 U.S. 1, 47-48, 63 S.Ct. 1393, 1415, 87 L.Ed. 1731. In the exercise of my discretion, I will consider the further evidence presented by plaintiff whether or not it could have been discovered before the first motion in the exercise of due diligence.
The alleged misrepresentation in the defendants' original papers which plaintiff now relies upon is an implicit one as to the length of time defendants' parent and their affiliates have used the word "Triumph" in their trade names. Plaintiff's position is not without support. Thus, in defendants' summarization of the facts in their memorandum in opposition to the original motion, it is stated (pp. 2-3) as follows:
In fact, defendants' parent's name did not include the word "Triumph" until at the earliest March 26, 1960, by defendants' version, and not until September 17, 1960 by plaintiff's version. Perhaps, as defendants now claim, the continual use of the recently acquired name of defendants' parent throughout the papers was "simply in accordance with the usual and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company, Civ. A. No. 41762.
...Waco-Porter Corp. v. Tubular Structures Corp. of America, 222 F.Supp. 332 (S.D. Cal.1963); Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph International Corp., 191 F.Supp. 937 (S.D.N.Y.1961); See also, 6A Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 59.03, ¶ 59.04 13 (2d 1 See, Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstron......
-
Stamicarbon, N.V. v. American Cyanamid Co., 254
...injunction. Under these circumstances, it may raise the claim on appeal. Cf. F.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph International Corp., 191 F.Supp. 937, 938 (S.D.N.Y.1961), rev'd on other grounds, 308 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. 1962). There are, however, two difficulties with this......
-
United Parcel Serv. v. United States Postal Serv.
...we have always been ready to suspend proceedings while new matter was introduced below. See, e. g., Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph International Corp., 191 F.Supp. 937 (S.D.N.Y.1961). But absent permission of the appellate court to reopen, sound judicial administration demands that ......
-
Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp.
...relief based on new evidence made before final judgment would be timely under the rule. See, e.g., Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph Internat'l Corp., 191 F.Supp. 937, 938 (S.D.N.Y.1961), rev'd on other grounds 308 F.2d 196 (2d Despite the apparent clarity of the intended limitation of......