Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-07429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zioness Movement v. The Lawfare Project, Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration after a jury found the parties co-owned a trademark.
Zioness Movement, Inc. and The Lawfare Project, Inc., whose rights to the Zioness trademark were affected by the jury’s co-ownership finding and the denial of reconsideration.
What happened
Zioness Movement, Inc. asked the court to reconsider an earlier ruling concerning the parties’ rights to the Zioness trademark. The opinion says a jury found that both Zioness Movement and The Lawfare Project helped create the mark and that neither gave up its rights to the other.
The court explained that reconsideration is not an opportunity to repeat arguments already considered. It said reconsideration generally requires showing that the court overlooked controlling decisions or important information. The court found that Zioness had instead repeated arguments it had previously made and that the trial evidence supported the jury’s co-ownership finding.
Judge Hellerstein denied Zioness Movement’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion from the docket. The court also explained that one trademark co-owner generally cannot sue the other for infringement, although both may sue a third party.
The detailed version
- Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07429
- Alvin Hellerstein
- May 30, 2024
Background
Zioness Movement, Inc., the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, moved for reconsideration of an earlier ruling. The opinion does not reproduce that earlier ruling in full, but it states that Zioness had previously argued in support of a request to stay proceedings. The motion for reconsideration was filed as ECF No. 238.
A jury had found that both parties were involved in creating the Zioness trademark and that, although they later separated, neither party gave up its rights to the other. The court said the verdict sheet presented the possibility of co-ownership and that neither side objected. The court also said trial evidence showed that the parties’ current leadership worked together at The Lawfare Project during 2017 and 2018 and used its resources to develop the Zioness mark.
Court’s reasoning
The court described reconsideration as a narrow procedure, not a chance to reargue issues simply because a party disagrees with the result. It explained that reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked. The court found that Zioness did not meet that standard because it repeated arguments raised and rejected in its earlier brief and in its April 8, 2024 argument supporting the stay request.
The court also addressed the trademark co-ownership finding. It stated that one co-owner cannot sue the other for infringement, although both co-owners can sue a third party. The court further stated that joint ownership may be disfavored but is not unlawful and does not invalidate a trademark. It noted that the parties might need to resolve their disagreement by tolerating the claimed likelihood of confusion, distinguishing their uses, or stopping use of the trademark.
Disposition
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Zioness Movement’s motion for reconsideration. The court directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 238. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.