Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02961/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02961-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jason L. DeFrancesco, Esq., Pro Hac Vice

Baker and Rannells, P.A.

92 East Main St, Ste 302

Somerville, NJ 08876

Tel: (908) 722-5640 

Fax: (908) 725-7088

Email: jld@br-tmlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant,

MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.

Kenneth C Brooks (SBN 167,792)

Law Offices of Kenneth Brooks

1578 Thunder Ridge Circle

Milpitas, CA 95035

Tel: (916) 223-9773

Fax: (877) 730-4315

Email: kcb@brookspatents.com

Attorney for Plaintiff,

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.

Robert M. Wilson, (State Bar No. 122731)

Law Office of Robert M. Wilson

770 L Street, Suite 950

Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel: (916) 441-0888 

Email: RWilson@BusinessCounsel.net

Attorney for Defendant,

MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO)

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE 2:14-CV-02961-TLN-CKD

[Magistrate Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney]

[District Judge: Troy L. Nunley]

STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND 

RECONSIDERATION THEREOF; 

AND ORDER

This is a joint stipulation entered into between the parties who now seek approval of the 

Court to enter an order lifting the instant stay and, in doing so, reconsider the Defendant’s 

outstanding motion (ECF 7) with respect to the stay of the proceeding of the ‘654 mark.

Case 2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4
JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the instant proceeding, the Plaintiff is among other things challenging Defendant’s 

United States trademark registrations, namely nos. 4334000, 4225172 and 4006654 for 

IDHAYAM (“Defendant’s registrations”). Plaintiff has also brought a concurrent cancellation 

proceeding of Defendant’s registrations before the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO). 

The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the instant case as well as the proceeding 

before the USPTO for reasons that include res judicata - regarding Defendant’s registration no. 

4006654 (“the ‘654 mark”). 

The USPTO granted the dismissal as to claims regarding the ‘654 mark, but not as to the 

remaining two (2) marks. The Defendant did not challenge the ruling. The Plaintiff appealed the 

judgment to the Federal Circuit. In view of the appeal, the Defendant requested this Court stay 

pending the decision. The appeal was denied and Mandate issued February 22, 2016. The 

USPTO stayed the concurrent proceeding in view of this case. 

On March 31, 2016, this Court ruled on Defendant’s outstanding motion to dismiss as to 

trademark registration nos. 4334000 and 4225172, and in doing so, the Court stayed the 

proceeding as to the ‘654 mark (ECF 21) pending the appeal. 

The parties since engaged in discussions regarding ECF 21 and requested that the Court 

extend time for Defendant to respond to the complaint (ECF 1) so the parties can have an 

opportunity to consider streamlining the litigation by either stipulating to eventual relief from the 

stay and or possibly seeking clarification of this Court’s Order (ECF 22). 

Upon further discussions, the parties represent that the time to challenge the appeal has 

expired. The parties request the associated stay be lifted therefore, and in doing so, request the 

Court reconsider the Defendant’s motion (ECF 7) with respect to the stay of the proceeding of 

Case 2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4
JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the ‘654 mark. The parties further stipulate that no responsive pleading is due from Defendant 

until the Court rules on reconsideration of ECF 7, as described above. The parties believe that the 

requested relief is appropriate under the circumstances.

Upon e‐filing the joint request and proposed order, the proposed order has been emailed 

in accordance with Local Rule 137(b), for review and approval to tlnorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

DATED: May 5, 2016

By: /s/ Jason DeFrancesco

Jason DeFrancesco, Esq.

Pro hac vice

Attorney for Defendant,

MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS LLC

By: /s/ Kenneth C. Brooks

Law Offices of Kenneth C. Brooks

Attorney for Plaintiff,

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.

Case 2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4
JOINT STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION THEREOF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO)

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE 2:14-CV-02961-TLN-CKD

[Magistrate Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney]

[District Judge: Troy L. Nunley]

 ORDER

ORDER

The joint request by the parties and stipulation thereto is GRANTED. 

Whereby, the stay as ordered in ECF 21 is lifted and the Court will reconsider 

Defendant’s motion (ECF 7) in view of the ‘654 mark. No responsive pleading is due from 

Defendant until the Court rules on the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4