DFO Global Performance Commerce Limited (Canada) et al v. Nirmel et al, No. 1:2020cv06093 - Document 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER: In its August 6, 2021 Opinion and Order, the Court reasoned that the Blaux brandname was "inherently distinctive," based on Defendants' failure to identify any similarity between Blaux and an "ordinary" word. (Dkt. No. 66 at 18.) In response, Defendants propose, for the first time, that Blaux is pronounced /blo/ or /bloh/ and bears resemblance to the word "blow." Defendants are free to pursue this theory, which is relevant to the trademark and unfa ir competition claims, through discovery. "The law of the case doctrine...does not preclude [the] Court from reconsidering issues...that have initially been raised in the context of a motion to dismiss," so long as the conclusions reached in resolving the motion are "altered by discovery, or by subsequent developments in the law." Nobel Ins. Co. v. City of New York, No. 00-cv-1328, 2006 WL 2848121, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); accord Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dep't, 709 F.3d 87, 97 (2d Cir. 2013). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 8/16/2021) (jca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DFO Global Performance Commerce Limited (Canada) et al v. Nirmel et al Doc. 69 Case 1:20-cv-06093-JPO Document 69 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DFO GLOBAL PERFORMANCE COMMERCE LIMITED (NEVADA), et al., Plaintiffs, -v- 20-CV-6093 (JPO) ORDER KRISHNA DELAHUNTY NIRMEL, et al., Defendants. J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: In its August 6, 2021 Opinion and Order, the Court reasoned that the Blaux brandname was “inherently distinctive,” based on Defendants’ failure to identify any similarity between Blaux and an “ordinary” word. (Dkt. No. 66 at 18.) In response, Defendants propose, for the first time, that Blaux is pronounced /blo / or /bloh/ and bears resemblance to the word “blow.” Defendants are free to pursue this theory, which is relevant to the trademark and unfair competition claims, through discovery. “The law of the case doctrine . . . does not preclude [the] Court from reconsidering issues . . . that have initially been raised in the context of a motion to dismiss,” so long as the conclusions reached in resolving the motion are “altered by discovery, or by subsequent developments in the law.” Nobel Ins. Co. v. City of New York, No. 00-cv-1328, 2006 WL 2848121, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); accord Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dep’t, 709 F.3d 87, 97 (2d Cir. 2013). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 2021 New York, New York ____________________________________ J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
