SC Johnson & Son Inc v. Nutraceutical Corporation et al

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/18/2014. By 9/24/2014 Defendants' to file their Rule 59 motion and Plaintiff to file statement indicating appropriate terms for its security if injunction is stayed. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,
v.

Case No. 11-C-861

NUTRACEUTICAL CORPORATION and
NUTRAMARKS, INC.,
Defendants-Counterclaimants.

ORDER
The Defendants, Nutraceutical Corporation (“Nutraceutical”) and
NutraMarks, Inc. (“NutraMarks”), filed an expedited non-dispositive motion
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(3) seeking a stay of the August 29, 2014,
injunction, until 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the motion for relief
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 that they intend to file on September 26, 2014.
Plaintiff S.C. Johnson (“SCJ”) opposes the motion.
Rule 62(b)(3) provides that “[o]n appropriate terms for the opposing
party’s security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment . . . pending
disposition of any of the following motions: . . . under Rule 59, for a new trial
or to alter or amend a judgment.” “The district court may only stay execution
of the judgment pending the disposition of certain post-trial motions or appeal
if the court provides for the security of the judgment creditor.” Peacock v.

Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 359 (1996).
The Defendants do not intend to file their Rule 59 motion until Friday,
September 26, 2006.
September 28, 2014.

The effective date of the injunction is Sunday,
The anticipated Rule 59 motion filing date does not

provide the Court with sufficient time to decide whether to stay the injunction
before the Defendants must comply with its provisions.
Thus, if the Defendants want the Court to consider the requested stay,
they must file their Rule 59 motion no later than Wednesday, September 24,
2014.

By the stated deadline, SCJ must also file a statement indicating

appropriate terms for its security, if one or both of the paragraphs of the
injunction1 are stayed.

1

The injunction states:

The Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and
attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation
with them or acting for, with, by, through or under them,
are permanently enjoined from counterfeiting and
infringing SCJ’s BUG-OFF® Mark, from unfair competition
with SCJ and from falsely designating the origin of the SCJ
goods; and,
No later than September 28, 2014, the Defendants must
deliver up for destruction to SCJ all unauthorized products
and/or advertisements in its possession or under its control
bearing the infringing BUG OFF mark or any simulation,
reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation
thereof, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118.
(Court’s Aug. 29, 2014, Decision and Order, 39) (ECF No. 89.)

-2-

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of September, 2014.
SO ORDERED:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-