Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cathedral Art M Co. v. Divinity Boutique, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

May 24, 2018

CATHEDRAL ART M CO., Plaintiff,
v.
DIVINITY BOUTIQUE, LLC and NICOLE BRAYDEN GIFTS, LLC, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants Divinity Boutique, LLC, and Nicole Brayden Gifts, LLC's (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal [48] (“Defendants' Motion”). Also before the Court is Plaintiff Cathedral Art M Co.'s (“Plaintiff” or “Cathedral Art”) Motion to Stay the Deadline for Filing Any Motion for Attorneys' Fees [49] (“Plaintiff's Motion”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint [1] and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [2] (“TRO Motion”) seeking to preclude Defendants from “selling goods bearing Plaintiff's AMAZING WOMAN trademark and/or associated trade dress.” ([2] at 1). On January 12, 2018, the Court conducted a hearing on the TRO Motion, during which all parties were represented by counsel. ([26] (Transcript)). On January 12, 2018, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's TRO Motion, finding that Plaintiff had then failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of succeeding on their trademark or trade dress claims. The Court set an accelerated schedule for filing and briefing of Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. ([11]).

         Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [13] on January 16, 2018, providing additional evidence supporting its trademark and trade dress claims. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion [23] and Plaintiff filed a Reply [27]. On January 24, 2018, the Court conducted a hearing on the Motion. ([31], [34] (Transcript)). During the hearing, Leo A. Tracey, President of Plaintiff Cathedral Art, and Keith Schwartz, Managing Member of Defendant Nicole Brayden Gifts, LLC (“Nicole Brayden”), testified. ([23-4] at ¶2, [14-2] at ¶1). The Court allowed the parties to submit post-hearing written memoranda. ([35-1], [37]).

         On January 26, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. ([41]). The Court found that Cathedral Art had established the four elements necessary to preliminarily enjoin Defendants' use of the AMAZING WOMAN mark. The Court preliminarily enjoined Defendants from selling products bearing Plaintiff's AMAZING WOMAN trademark, including products that bear the word mark “AMAZING WOMAN” and products that bear a poem entitled “Recipe for an Amazing Woman.” ([41] at 28). The Court also required Plaintiff to post an injunction bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of $50, 000.00. (Id.).

         On February 8, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's preliminary injunction order. ([48]). Defendants argue that the Court erred in finding that Plaintiff would be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction. ([48.1] at 1-5). Defendants move in the alternative that the Court stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). ([48.1] at 5-9).

         Plaintiff opposes Defendants‘ motion for reconsideration. ([57]). Plaintiff also moves to stay the deadline for filing any motion for attorneys‘ fees. ([49]).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration

         A district court has discretion to revise or reconsider interlocutory orders at any time before final judgment has been entered. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); see also Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000). The Court does not reconsider its orders as a matter of routine practice. See LR 7.2 E, ND. Ga. “[M]otions for reconsideration may not be used to present the court with arguments already heard and dismissed or to repackage familiar arguments to test whether the court will change its mind.” Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1259 (N.D.Ga. 2003). A motion for reconsideration is generally appropriate only where there is: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact. See Jersawitz v. People TV, 71 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1344 (N.D.Ga. 1999); Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 916 F.Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D.Ga. 1995), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996). None of those three situations exists here.

         Defendants move for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order arguing that the Court erroneously “found that Plaintiff was entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm.” ([48.1 at 2). As the Court noted, preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic and extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the movant can clearly establish each of the four elements necessary for relief, including that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is not granted. ([41] at 12-13, citing Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003)).

         Rather than apply a presumption of irreparable harm, the Court concluded that Plaintiff would, in fact, be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction:

Failure to grant a preliminary injunction would subject Cathedral Art to a loss in trade and customers and a loss of control over its AMAZING WOMAN product line while risking the substantial goodwill Abbey Press developed in its “Amazing Woman” products in the industry over the last decade. “[G]rounds for irreparable injury include loss of control of reputation, loss of trade, and loss of goodwill. Irreparable injury can also be based upon the possibility of confusion.” Ferrellgas Partners, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.