Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:99-cv-10175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patsy’s Brand v. I.O.B. Realty, Judge Wood declined to advise whether a proposed label complied with a trademark injunction.
The parties to the trademark-injunction dispute, especially the defendants seeking to use the proposed label; any party later seeking relief must satisfy the court’s conference-and-certification requirement.
What happened
Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. concerns defendants’ request for the court’s view on whether a proposed label complied with a longstanding trademark injunction.
The defendants had not filed a formal action seeking a declaration of their rights or asked to modify the injunction. Patsy’s Brand opposed the label, although it encouraged resolving the dispute in light of the public health crisis.
Judge Wood said the request sought an advisory opinion, which the Constitution does not allow, and required any later filing party to certify by affidavit that the parties had first made good-faith efforts to reach an agreement.
The detailed version
- Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. · No. 1:99-cv-10175
- Kimba Wood
- June 3, 2020
Background
The defendants submitted a letter asking whether a proposed label complied with a longstanding trademark injunction in the case. The opinion does not describe the proposed label’s contents.
Parties’ Positions and Procedure
The defendants had not formally started a declaratory-judgment action, which is an action asking a court to declare the parties’ legal rights. They also had not moved for relief from the underlying injunction under Rule 60(b) or another Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Patsy’s Brand stated that it opposed use of the proposed label but recognized the effects of the public health crisis on businesses.
Ruling
Judge Kimba M. Wood understood the defendants’ letter as requesting an advisory opinion—general legal guidance about a proposed action rather than a ruling in a properly presented dispute. The court said it was constitutionally prohibited from issuing such an opinion and therefore did not decide whether the proposed label complied with the injunction. The court strongly encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute without court intervention. Before either party files a motion or other request for relief concerning the label, the filing party must submit an affidavit certifying that the parties conferred, made good-faith efforts to reach an agreement, and reached a point where communication and reasonable compromise were no longer feasible.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.