The Better Angels Society, Inc. v. Institute for American Values, Inc.
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-03285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Better Angels v. Institute for American Values, Judge Cote denied reconsideration of summary judgment for Better Angels on trademark infringement.
The ruling directly affected The Better Angels Society, Inc. and Institute for American Values, Inc. by leaving in place the earlier summary judgment for Better Angels on its trademark-infringement claim.
What happened
The Better Angels Society, Inc. v. Institute for American Values, Inc. concerned Institute for American Values’ request to reconsider an earlier decision granting Better Angels summary judgment on its trademark-infringement claim.
Institute for American Values argued that Better Angels lacked the right to sue and that Institute for American Values had priority to use the mark for goods and services beyond Better Angels’ 2011 registration. The court found that Better Angels was the mark’s registrant and that the earlier decision had already addressed the priority argument.
Judge Denise Cote denied the motion for reconsideration. She concluded that Institute for American Values had identified no legal or factual error warranting reconsideration and was instead raising new arguments or repeating arguments previously rejected.
The detailed version
- The Better Angels Society, Inc. v. Institute for American Values, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03285
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
On December 17, 2019, Institute for American Values, Inc. (IAV) moved for reconsideration of the court’s November 15, 2019 opinion. That earlier opinion granted summary judgment—a decision without a trial when the court determines that no material factual dispute requires one—to The Better Angels Society, Inc. on its trademark-infringement claim.
Arguments and analysis
A motion for reconsideration is governed by a strict standard. It generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious injustice. The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain a second hearing on the merits, or substitute for an appeal.
The court concluded that IAV had not identified a legal or factual error that justified reconsideration. It found that IAV mainly raised new arguments or sought to revive arguments that the November opinion had already considered and rejected.
The court rejected IAV’s argument that Better Angels lacked standing—the legal ability to bring the claim. IAV relied on a prior decision recognizing that only trademark registrants may bring an action under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act. The court stated that this precedent did not hold that a registrant lacks standing to enforce trademark rights beyond the goods and services listed in its registration. Because Better Angels was undisputedly the registrant of the Better Angels mark, the court held that Better Angels had standing to sue.
The court also rejected IAV’s argument that it had priority to use the mark for goods and services beyond those listed in Better Angels’ 2011 registration. The court said the November opinion had addressed that argument. It noted that the parties operated in similar and closely related areas of commerce and that the trademark likelihood-of-confusion analysis considers whether a trademark owner could reasonably expand its business. The November opinion had therefore held that Better Angels’ trademark rights extended beyond the goods and services listed in the 2011 registration, preventing IAV from relying on priority of use to defeat Better Angels’ summary-judgment motion.
Disposition
Judge Denise Cote denied IAV’s December 17, 2019 motion for reconsideration. This opinion addressed the reconsideration request rather than reopening the earlier summary-judgment ruling.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.