Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-07438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories Inc., Judge Schofield denied GMA’s reconsideration motion and request to certify an interlocutory appeal.
GMA Accessories Inc.’s request to reconsider the earlier partial ruling and obtain an immediate appeal was denied; Atallah Group US Inc.’s claims were not dismissed through this order.
What happened
Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories Inc. concerns GMA Accessories Inc.’s request to revisit an earlier order that had partly denied GMA’s motion to dismiss.
GMA argued that a trademark settlement agreement reinstating two CHARLOTTE trademark registrations was proper and that Atallah Group’s complaint did not adequately allege an improper agreement between competitors. GMA also asked for permission to immediately appeal the earlier order.
The court denied both reconsideration and certification for an immediate appeal. Judge Lorna G. Schofield said GMA identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice, and that the complaint adequately alleged a Sherman Act claim.
The detailed version
- Atallah Group US Inc. v. GMA Accessories Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07438
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Defendant GMA Accessories Inc.’s motion to dismiss. GMA then moved for reconsideration of the portion denying its motion to dismiss. In the alternative, GMA asked the court to certify the non-final order for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which permits an immediate appeal in limited circumstances.
Reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent injustice. It also explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate issues or present arguments that could have been raised earlier.
The court denied reconsideration because GMA did not identify any change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice. The court also denied reconsideration on the merits. GMA argued that a settlement agreement with Charlotte Olympia Holdings, Ltd. properly reinstated two GMA registrations for the CHARLOTTE mark because an earlier order had vacated a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision cancelling the marks as abandoned. The court said it had already considered that order and that the vacatur did not affect the antitrust analysis because it resulted from a consent judgment implementing a settlement, rather than from a decision on the merits.
The court also rejected GMA’s arguments that it had not sued Charlotte Olympia Holdings, Ltd. over the registrations and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege a common improper motive between the parties to the settlement agreement. The court stated that the complaint sufficiently pleaded both elements of a Section 1 Sherman Act claim: an agreement between competitors and a direct anticompetitive effect on competition as a whole in the relevant market.
Interlocutory Appeal
The court denied GMA’s alternative request for certification for an interlocutory appeal. It found that GMA had not raised a controlling legal question satisfying the statutory requirements for such an appeal.
Disposition
The order states: “Defendant’s motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal is DENIED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 33.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.