V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/6/16 ORDERING the STAY as ordered in ECF 21 LIFTED and the Court will reconsider Defendant's motion (ECF 7 ) in view of the '654 mark. No responsive pleading is due from Defendant until the Court rules on the motion. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4

Jason L. DeFrancesco, Esq., Pro Hac Vice
Baker and Rannells, P.A.
92 East Main St, Ste 302
Somerville, NJ 08876
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Kenneth C Brooks (SBN 167,792)
Law Offices of Kenneth Brooks
1578 Thunder Ridge Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorney for Defendant,
MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.

Attorney for Plaintiff,
V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Robert M. Wilson, (State Bar No. 122731)
Law Office of Robert M. Wilson
770 L Street, Suite 950
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

11
12

Attorney for Defendant,
MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO)

16
17

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.,

18

Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
23

vs.
MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.,
Defendant.

) CASE 2:14-CV-02961-TLN-CKD
)
) [Magistrate Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney]
) [District Judge: Troy L. Nunley]
)
)
) STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND
)
RECONSIDERATION THEREOF;
)
AND ORDER
)
)
)

24

This is a joint stipulation entered into between the parties who now seek approval of the
25
26
27

Court to enter an order lifting the instant stay and, in doing so, reconsider the Defendant’s
outstanding motion (ECF 7) with respect to the stay of the proceeding of the ‘654 mark.

28

JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1
2
3
4

In the instant proceeding, the Plaintiff is among other things challenging Defendant’s
United States trademark registrations, namely nos. 4334000, 4225172 and 4006654 for
IDHAYAM (“Defendant’s registrations”). Plaintiff has also brought a concurrent cancellation
proceeding of Defendant’s registrations before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

5
6
7

(USPTO).
The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the instant case as well as the proceeding

8

before the USPTO for reasons that include res judicata - regarding Defendant’s registration no.

9

4006654 (“the ‘654 mark”).

10

The USPTO granted the dismissal as to claims regarding the ‘654 mark, but not as to the

11
12

remaining two (2) marks. The Defendant did not challenge the ruling. The Plaintiff appealed the

13

judgment to the Federal Circuit. In view of the appeal, the Defendant requested this Court stay

14

pending the decision. The appeal was denied and Mandate issued February 22, 2016. The

15

USPTO stayed the concurrent proceeding in view of this case.

16

On March 31, 2016, this Court ruled on Defendant’s outstanding motion to dismiss as to
17
18
19
20
21
22

trademark registration nos. 4334000 and 4225172, and in doing so, the Court stayed the
proceeding as to the ‘654 mark (ECF 21) pending the appeal.
The parties since engaged in discussions regarding ECF 21 and requested that the Court
extend time for Defendant to respond to the complaint (ECF 1) so the parties can have an
opportunity to consider streamlining the litigation by either stipulating to eventual relief from the

23
24

stay and or possibly seeking clarification of this Court’s Order (ECF 22).

25

Upon further discussions, the parties represent that the time to challenge the appeal has

26

expired. The parties request the associated stay be lifted therefore, and in doing so, request the

27

Court reconsider the Defendant’s motion (ECF 7) with respect to the stay of the proceeding of

28

JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1

the ‘654 mark. The parties further stipulate that no responsive pleading is due from Defendant

2

until the Court rules on reconsideration of ECF 7, as described above. The parties believe that the

3

requested relief is appropriate under the circumstances.

4

Upon e‐filing the joint request and proposed order, the proposed order has been emailed
5
6

in accordance with Local Rule 137(b), for review and approval to [e-mail].

7
8
9

DATED: May 5, 2016
By:

/s/ Jason DeFrancesco

10

Jason DeFrancesco, Esq.
Pro hac vice

11
12

Attorney for Defendant,
MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS LLC

13
14
15
16

By:

/s/ Kenneth C. Brooks
Law Offices of Kenneth C. Brooks
Attorney for Plaintiff,
V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO)

3
4

) CASE 2:14-CV-02961-TLN-CKD
)
) [Magistrate Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney]
) [District Judge: Troy L. Nunley]
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.,
5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

vs.
MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.,
Defendant.

10
11

ORDER

12
13

The joint request by the parties and stipulation thereto is GRANTED.

14

Whereby, the stay as ordered in ECF 21 is lifted and the Court will reconsider

15

Defendant’s motion (ECF 7) in view of the ‘654 mark. No responsive pleading is due from

16

Defendant until the Court rules on the motion.
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2016

21
22
23

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF