HERMES INTERNATIONAL and HERMES OF PARIS v. "MASON ROTHSCHILD" a/k/a SONNY…
HERMES INTERNATIONAL and HERMES OF PARIS, INC. v. "MASON ROTHSCHILD" a/k/a SONNY ESTIVAL
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:22-cv-00384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Hermès v. Rothschild: Magistrate Judge Gorenstein set discovery deadlines while Rothschild’s dismissal motion remained pending.
HERMÈS INTERNATIONAL, HERMÈS OF PARIS, INC., and MASON ROTHSCHILD were affected by the court-ordered schedule for discovery and further proceedings in the trademark dispute.
What happened
In HERMÈS INTERNATIONAL and HERMÈS OF PARIS, INC. v. MASON ROTHSCHILD, the parties submitted a proposed schedule for a lawsuit over the unauthorized use of “METABIRKINS.” The plaintiffs seek money and an order stopping the alleged trademark infringement and dilution.
Rothschild had filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by two earlier legal decisions. That motion was still awaiting full briefing. Rothschild also sought to pause discovery while the court considered the motion.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered the proposed schedule, including deadlines for document requests, depositions, fact and expert discovery, and possible summary judgment proceedings. The order did not decide the dismissal motion or the merits of the trademark dispute.
The detailed version
- HERMES INTERNATIONAL and HERMES OF PARIS v. "MASON ROTHSCHILD" a/k/a SONNY… · No. 1:22-cv-00384
- Jed Rakoff
- Apr. 8, 2022
Background
The parties submitted a proposed scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3). HERMÈS INTERNATIONAL and HERMÈS OF PARIS, INC. alleged trademark infringement, dilution by blurring, and other causes of action based on MASON ROTHSCHILD’s alleged unauthorized use of “METABIRKINS.” The plaintiffs sought monetary and injunctive relief.
Rothschild had filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The motion was not yet fully briefed. Rothschild argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred as a matter of law by Rogers v. Grimaldi and Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Rothschild also notified the court that he intended to seek a stay, or pause, of discovery while the dismissal motion was pending. The plaintiffs opposed that request.
Scheduling Order
The court ordered the proposed litigation schedule. Initial document requests and interrogatories were due May 9,
- Initial disclosures were due April 22,
- Depositions and fact discovery were to be completed by August 9,
- Expert reports were due July 29, 2022, rebuttal disclosures were due August 26, 2022, and all expert discovery was to be completed by September 23,
- Requests for admission were due July 8, 2022.
The order also set procedures for amended pleadings and adding parties, confidential information, electronically stored information, discovery disputes, and possible summary judgment motions. The parties anticipated a five-day jury trial and proposed referring the case to the magistrate judge for a settlement conference after fact discovery ended.
Disposition and Scope
The order established a case-management schedule. It did not grant or deny Rothschild’s motion to dismiss, did not rule on the requested stay of discovery, and did not decide whether the alleged use of “METABIRKINS” infringed or diluted the plaintiffs’ trademarks. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein signed the order on April 8, 2022.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.