United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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  (“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  (“Plaintiff's
January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint  and a
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order  (“TRO
Motion”) seeking to preclude Defendants from
“selling goods bearing Plaintiff's AMAZING WOMAN
trademark and/or associated trade dress.” ( at 1).
On January 12, 2018, the Court conducted a hearing on the TRO
Motion, during which all parties were represented by counsel.
( (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
filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction  on January 16,
2018, providing additional evidence supporting its trademark
and trade dress claims. Defendants filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motion  and Plaintiff filed a Reply
. On January 24, 2018, the Court conducted a hearing on
the Motion. (,  (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], ).
January 26, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion
for a preliminary injunction. (). 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.” ( at
28). The Court also required Plaintiff to post an injunction
bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of $50, 000.00.
February 8, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's preliminary injunction
order. (). 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).
opposes Defendants‘ motion for reconsideration. ().
Plaintiff also moves to stay the deadline for filing any
motion for attorneys‘ fees. ().
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration
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.
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. ( at 12-13, citing Four Seasons
Hotels and Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr,
S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003)).
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,