Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 15, 2022

Trane International Inc. v. Calentadores de America, S.A. de C.V.

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:21-cv-04497
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Trane International v. Calentadores de America, Judge Cote ordered trademark-license agreements sealed to protect confidential business information.

Who this affects

The order affects the parties’ trademark-license agreements and public access to those documents, particularly Calentadores de America, S.A. de C.V. and Trane International Inc.; it does not disclose a ruling on the underlying contract dispute.

What happened

Trane International Inc. and Trane U.S., Inc. sued Calentadores de America, S.A. de C.V. and Ariston Thermo Mexico S.A. de C.V., alleging that the defendants breached trademark-license agreements. Calentadores asked to file two agreements under seal as part of the defendants’ planned motion to dismiss, and Trane consented.

The agreements contained confidential commercial information, including royalty fees, license duration, licensed trademarks, territory, and limits on the licensed rights. Calentadores argued that public disclosure could harm its competitive position, and the letter stated that some nonconfidential terms would remain publicly available.

The court ordered the agreements sealed. The order was signed by Judge Denise L. Cote, who is identified in the document as the United States District Judge.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Trane International Inc. v. Calentadores de America, S.A. de C.V. · No. 1:21-cv-04497
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Feb. 15, 2022

Background

Trane International Inc. and Trane U.S., Inc. are identified as the plaintiffs, and Calentadores de America, S.A. de C.V. and Ariston Thermo Mexico S.A. de C.V. are identified as the defendants. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the defendants breached trademark-license agreements. The defendants planned to attach the agreements to their motion to dismiss the complaint.

Calentadores filed a consented letter-motion asking for permission to file under seal a Trademark License Agreement dated December 13, 2000, and a First Amendment to Trademark License Agreement dated November 21, 2014. The letter states that Trane consented to the motion.

Arguments about sealing

Calentadores argued that the agreements contained highly confidential and commercially sensitive information. The listed information included royalty licensing fees, the duration of the license, the specific trademarks covered, the territory of the licensed rights, and the scope and limitations of those rights. Calentadores argued that disclosure could harm its competitive standing and potentially harm Trane’s as well.

The letter also stated that the complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss disclosed limited, nonconfidential terms of the agreements. According to the letter, those terms would remain accessible to the public even if the agreements were sealed.

Ruling

The document ends with “SO ORDERED” and is signed by Judge Denise L. Cote. The court ordered the agreements sealed. The text provided does not state a separate ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and it does not expressly use the word “granted” for the sealing motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.