CV Collection, LLC v. Weworewhat LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-01623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In CV Collection v. Weworewhat, Judge Engelmayer consolidated two related intellectual-property lawsuits involving the same alleged infringement.
The parties to both actions, including WeWoreWhat, LLC, Onia, LLC, CV Collection, LLC d/b/a The Great Eros, Danielle Bernstein, Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., Carbon 38, Inc., BOP LLC, and the other defendants identified in the second action, must proceed under the consolidated case number 20 Civ. 8623.
What happened
CV Collection, LLC v. Weworewhat LLC involved two lawsuits about the same alleged infringement. In the first, WeWoreWhat, LLC and Onia, LLC sought a declaration that they had not infringed CV Collection’s intellectual-property rights. In the second, CV Collection accused those companies and other retailers of the same infringement.
All parties jointly asked the court to combine the cases. The court found that the lawsuits involved the same copyright and trademark issues, largely the same parties, and essentially the same facts. It also found that combining them would reduce unnecessary costs and delay without causing likely prejudice or confusion.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted the request and consolidated the cases. The court directed the parties to file future documents in case number 20 Civ. 8623, terminated the pending consolidation motion in case number 21 Civ. 1623, and kept the March 29, 2021 joint-letter deadline in place.
The detailed version
- CV Collection, LLC v. Weworewhat LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01623
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 17, 2021
Background
The court considered a joint request to consolidate two related actions. In the first action, No. 20 Civ. 8623, WeWoreWhat, LLC and Onia, LLC sought a declaration that they had not infringed the intellectual-property rights of CV Collection, LLC, doing business as The Great Eros. In the second action, No. 21 Civ. 1623, CV Collection sued WeWoreWhat, Onia, and other retailers, accusing them of the same alleged infringement.
The court described the actions as essentially mirror-image lawsuits. Although the second action included additional parties, every party in the first action was also named in the second. The actions concerned the same alleged infringement and involved overlapping copyright and Lanham Act issues, parties, and facts.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate actions that involve common questions of law or fact when consolidation will avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Before consolidating cases, the court must also consider whether efficiency benefits are outweighed by possible prejudice or confusion. Efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the parties’ joint request and consolidated the two actions. The court found that the common legal and factual questions made consolidation clearly appropriate and that the parties’ joint request showed no likely prejudice or confusion.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at docket 41 in case number 21 Civ. 1623 and to consolidate the cases. The parties were directed to file all future documents in case number 20 Civ. 8623. The March 29, 2021 deadline for filing a joint letter about proceedings in the consolidated cases remained in place.
This order addressed case management and consolidation; it did not decide whether infringement occurred.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.