WeWoreWhat, LLC v. CV Collection, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-08623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In WeWoreWhat v. CV Collection, Judge Engelmayer granted the parties’ joint request to consolidate two related copyright and trademark actions.
WeWoreWhat, LLC; Onia, LLC; CV Collection, LLC, doing business as The Great Eros; and the additional parties named in the second action. The cases were combined for future proceedings under case number 20 Civ. 8623.
What happened
WeWoreWhat, LLC and Onia, LLC brought the first action seeking a declaration that they had not infringed CV Collection, LLC’s intellectual-property rights. CV Collection later brought a second action accusing them and other retailers of the same infringement.
The parties jointly asked the court to combine the two cases. The court found that the actions involved the same alleged infringement, largely the same parties, the same facts, and overlapping copyright and Lanham Act issues.
Judge Engelmayer granted the request to consolidate the cases, finding that consolidation would avoid unnecessary cost and delay and would not likely cause prejudice or confusion. The court directed the parties to file future documents in case number 20 Civ. 8623.
The detailed version
- WeWoreWhat, LLC v. CV Collection, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08623
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 17, 2021
Background
The court considered the parties’ joint request to consolidate two related cases. In the first action, No. 20 Civ. 8623, WeWoreWhat, LLC and Onia, LLC sought a declaration that they had not infringed CV Collection, LLC’s intellectual-property rights. In the second action, No. 21 Civ. 1623, CV Collection sued WeWoreWhat, Onia, and additional retailers, accusing them of the same alleged infringement that led to the first action.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact when doing so will avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The court must also consider whether consolidation could cause prejudice or confusion. Efficiency cannot come at the expense of fairness.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the two actions were essentially mirror-image lawsuits. They involved the same alleged infringement, largely the same parties, substantially the same facts, and overlapping copyright and Lanham Act issues. Although the second action included additional parties, everyone in the first action was also named in the second. Because all parties supported consolidation and the court saw no likely prejudice or confusion, it found that the relevant factors supported combining the cases.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ joint request and consolidated the two actions. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at docket 41 in case number 21 Civ. 1623 and to consolidate the cases. The parties were instructed 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.